Ball Test - Golf magazine

[mcbush25]

[quote name='bladestriker' post='855759' date='Jan 9 2008, 08:16 AM'][quote name='bladerunner80871' post='855275' date='Jan 8 2008, 06:53 PM']You obviously failed statistics and science dude...

This IS a golfer hitting it on the screws with these PARTICULAR launch conditions!

When I get fit on a launch monitor for clubs...the data is taken from center struck shots since that is ideally what I'm trying to achieve.

By your logic ... when we get fit for woods or irons, or even balls for that matter ... we should only use the data for topped shots, slices, and duck hooks.

We could have the results from a test where a bunch of dudes like you brought your own preferences and clubs to the range - and told us how much you liked the "FEEL" of your favorite ball. Stop crying.

Hats off to Golf Magazine for taking the PROPER stride in helping everyday golfers get scientific data to help with their purchases!

I have always played a premium ball. In fact I got fit on a launch monitor last summer...
My swing speed...94mph
Launch angle...16*
Backspin... 2700 rpm

I tested all the premium balls...guess what my results were?
1. Taylormade TP Red
2. Bridgestone B330-S
3. Srixon ZUR-S
Damn close to this article!

I went with the TP Red needless to say. But after reading this article - I went out and bought 2 boxes of the Burner TPs !!! Those numbers are AWESOME for a non-urethane ball. The spin rates were higher than either Callaway Tour-i !
I'm done blowing $40/box on balls as long as this ball is on the market.

PS...everyone should look at those spin rates as well as the distance leaders...those Nike PowerSofts are NOT what they're cracked up to be...the spin rates are too low - Who cares if they go sort of far? - ALSO...I'd like to add this for all the nike ho's crying about the Platinums results...This test just shows that the Platinum is a kick-a** ball if you have a higher than average swingspeed - so what if 90mph swings can't take advantage? PLAY WHAT WORKS.[/quote]

Your choice of words in your opening sentence shows your lack of grammer and how to get your point across intelligently. Your "stop crying and Nike ho's" comment show your need to antagonize.

If you read the whole article it was done with a 10.5 reg. flex driver and Callaway x20 irons, spin and launch characteristics are acheived by equipment that are not even close to what I use and probably the majority of players here. That is my argument on this topic. Callaways launch shots way higher than most irons and the driver set-up speaks for itself. The article is titled "Find The Ball That Fits You!" if I'm not mistaken, thats misleading. It should have been "Here is some data with this equipment hit by a robot".

Look at my member # and join date, grow some whiskers before you start disrespecting me, try to debate respectfully, in turn you might get some respect back your way.
[/quote]

I, quite frankly, thought the article was great. I am glad that they did the test with a standard set of clubs instead of changing clubs up throughout the whole process. The article provides the readers with good information that most readers wouldn't get if someone didn't give it to them. I know you or I might not use the clubs that they used in test, but it provides you fairly accurate comparison in spin rates for the balls.

[TEConnor]

About time. Excellent. Thought provoking and insightful. Made my Golf Mag subscription worthwhile. Answered a lot of questions that I have had and asked a few more that I hadn't thought about. Confirmed some suspicions that I've had and disproved a few myths that I've wrongly held. Perfect? No, but damn good. I give it a 5.9 / 6.0. Clearly the soviet judges disagree.

In my opinion, a key finding of the article is that a lot of the "high spin" versions of several tour balls (like the URS, the B330S, the V1, etc) are in fact lower spinning with a sand wedge than their "lower spinning" model counterparts. Wow. I've played the "higher spin" balls during summer conditions in the past, but I don't think it is a reasonable change now. The data did show that these "high spin" balls had higher ball flights than their counterparts, but the 4 - 8 feet of height won't make up for a lack of spin, imo.

About the only thing that I would have liked to see was a "durability" test of the urethane balls with a sand wedge...however, that probably would have introduced too many variables with groove types, etc. Nonetheless, that is a factor for the frequent player. If the test had convinced me that say, the B330 was much more durable than the V1x for an aggressive wedge shot, then that might dramatically skew which ball I would choose.

Cheers,
Tim

[doublenuts]

[quote name='Rockfish' post='856071' date='Jan 9 2008, 01:25 PM'][quote name='bladestriker' post='855759' date='Jan 9 2008, 09:16 AM'][quote name='bladerunner80871' post='855275' date='Jan 8 2008, 06:53 PM']You obviously failed statistics and science dude...

This IS a golfer hitting it on the screws with these PARTICULAR launch conditions!

When I get fit on a launch monitor for clubs...the data is taken from center struck shots since that is ideally what I'm trying to achieve.

By your logic ... when we get fit for woods or irons, or even balls for that matter ... we should only use the data for topped shots, slices, and duck hooks.

We could have the results from a test where a bunch of dudes like you brought your own preferences and clubs to the range - and told us how much you liked the "FEEL" of your favorite ball. Stop crying.

Hats off to Golf Magazine for taking the PROPER stride in helping everyday golfers get scientific data to help with their purchases!

I have always played a premium ball. In fact I got fit on a launch monitor last summer...
My swing speed...94mph
Launch angle...16*
Backspin... 2700 rpm

I tested all the premium balls...guess what my results were?
1. Taylormade TP Red
2. Bridgestone B330-S
3. Srixon ZUR-S
Damn close to this article!

I went with the TP Red needless to say. But after reading this article - I went out and bought 2 boxes of the Burner TPs !!! Those numbers are AWESOME for a non-urethane ball. The spin rates were higher than either Callaway Tour-i !
I'm done blowing $40/box on balls as long as this ball is on the market.

PS...everyone should look at those spin rates as well as the distance leaders...those Nike PowerSofts are NOT what they're cracked up to be...the spin rates are too low - Who cares if they go sort of far? - ALSO...I'd like to add this for all the nike ho's crying about the Platinums results...This test just shows that the Platinum is a kick-a** ball if you have a higher than average swingspeed - so what if 90mph swings can't take advantage? PLAY WHAT WORKS.[/quote][/quote]

[quote]Your choice of words in your opening sentence shows your lack of [color="#8b0000"][b][u]grammer[/u][/b][/color] and how to get your point across intelligently. Your "stop crying and Nike ho's" comment show your need to antagonize.[/quote]

Does spelling count ?

And how touchy we are defending our NOP,,,,,, very touching.

[quote]If you read the whole article it was done with a 10.5 reg. flex driver and Callaway x20 irons, spin and launch characteristics are acheived by equipment that are not even close to what I use and probably the majority of players here. That is my argument on this topic. Callaways launch shots way higher than most irons and the driver set-up speaks for itself. The article is titled "Find The Ball That Fits You!" if I'm not mistaken, thats misleading. It should have been "Here is some data with this equipment hit by a robot".[/quote]

But you yourself said (referring to the magazine) "Data means nothing to them." Apparently it means nothing to you either.

So because everybody plays different clubs, has different swings, different clubhead speeds, and so on, and so on, and so on,,,,,,,,,, the magazines shouldn't do ANY testing ? I mean really, what's your point ? The data sounds as though it was acheived very scientifically and accurately. If people MISINTERPRET the data or otherwise use it incorrectly, that's somehow the magazine's fault ???


[quote]That said, the Nike One Platinum is a great ball regardless of what they say.[/quote]

Well now, good for you. YOU found the ball YOU like best. Why do you have a problem with others (at least somewhat) relying on a magazine test to guide them to some possibilities ? Maybe you should just ignore the article (and the thread) ???


[quote]Look at my member # and join date, grow some whiskers before you start disrespecting me, try to debate respectfully, in turn you might get some respect back your way.[/quote]

Oy. I think someone needs to get over their bad self. Your member number and join date mean what exactly ? That you found the site before he did !!! I mean REALLY now !!! How old are you again ?

And frankly, weren't YOU trying to "antagonize" with your initial post here ???

[i]"That magazine lost any credibility with me when they did there driver test. What a JOKE!! The G10 won hands down in length, dispersion and accuracy and they pick Titleist who actually did very poor in their test??? Data means nothing to them."[/i]

That doesn't sound very "respectful" to ME. Or doesn't it count because it was directed towards a magazine rather than another person ?

Try not to take yourself too seriously, OK ?

Peace
[/quote]



OUCH!! Tha's gonna sting!


I mean "REALLY" Mr. B. LOOK at MY number??
Look at "MY" number as it proves -only more so- how insignificant I really am on these internets!

[NikeProto]

[quote name='dansrixon' post='855866' date='Jan 9 2008, 11:09 AM']Here is the issue I see with this test. With the vast technology and wide variety of golf balls that every manufacturer offers on the market for different swings, how can you test every ball with one swing speed/launch angle etc etc when each golf ball a manufacturer produces is designed for a different golfer? I think this is a great test for any golfer whos specs fall into this range, but for a major golf publication to publish a missleading article like this is dissappointing.

Titliest is the #1 ball manufacturer so I will use them as an example. They have 5 golf balls currently on the market. If all 5 golf balls fit one swing, why make 5? This test puts the tour balls on the same playing field as the DT solo? It doesnt make sense.

You wouldnt compare a Porsche to a Civic. Both are cars which a person drives, but both are designed with a different purpose, same thing applies to golf balls (to a lesser degree, but you get my point)

What I would have dowe is had atleast 3 catogories, although this still wouldnt be perfect it would give a better representation. Do a slow swing speed test, an average SS test like the one they did, and then do a high SS test.

The high compression balls results are a perfect example of how this test has failed. The Z-URC and Nike Platinum finished at the bottom of the list, which should not be a surprise since at the swing speeds tested are not fast enough to compress either of these golfballs to obtain their maximum performace. With testing under different conditions it would eliminate some of this confusion.

One very positive thing about this article is hopefully it will discourage the average golfer from using hign end tour ball that will not help their game just because their favorite tour player plays that ball.[/quote]

This pretty much "sums" it up.............. Nice post.

[dannykos]

Todays Golfer here in the UK also did a ball test this month - and, from what little i've read of Golf Magazine's test - Today's Golfer seems a bit better. They had a pro - an 8hcp guy and a 3hcp woman testing most of the balls (only the pro tested the "premium" balls). They hit PW and Driver - and gave stats for launch / spin / carry for both clubs.

If only i hadn't left my copy at work - i could've posted the results, although, to be honest - there's no real 'winner' per se. All you can really do - is see what's the closest match to your game, and pick the ball that suits.

I did find it interesting, that the pro was about 8 yards longer with the ProV1x over the non-X, but seeing the slightly increased launch angle with the driver, and extra 500rpms+ difference on the wedge - made me consider going back to the standard ProV1.

If any UK guys have theirs to hand - feel free to elaborate / correct as necessary!

[TUJJ]

[quote name='dannykos' post='856170' date='Jan 9 2008, 09:43 PM']Todays Golfer here in the UK also did a ball test this month - and, from what little i've read of Golf Magazine's test - Today's Golfer seems a bit better. They had a pro - an 8hcp guy and a 3hcp woman testing most of the balls (only the pro tested the "premium" balls). They hit PW and Driver - and gave stats for launch / spin / carry for both clubs.

If only i hadn't left my copy at work - i could've posted the results, although, to be honest - there's no real 'winner' per se. All you can really do - is see what's the closest match to your game, and pick the ball that suits.

I did find it interesting, that the pro was about 8 yards longer with the ProV1x over the non-X, but seeing the slightly increased launch angle with the driver, and extra 500rpms+ difference on the wedge - made me consider going back to the standard ProV1.

If any UK guys have theirs to hand - feel free to elaborate / correct as necessary![/quote]


Last last year´s TG´s golfball number was excellent just have to wait now when the magazine arrives to Finland, and of course I´ll buy the golf magazine also. Would be nice to compare the results.

was there all the new golfballs like HX Hot bite, e6+ in TG´s test?

Thanks
ps, it´s snowing here

[Adamsgolfer1]

[quote name='danimal' post='851458' date='Jan 6 2008, 10:28 AM']The 2/08 Golf Magazine just arrived. There's a nice in depth article on ball test results. I am glad to see some reviews based on more objective (quantitative) rather than subjective data. Lot's of sleeper balls out there. You can get near premium ball performance for about half the cost of a premium ball.

Based on this article I am looking to try the e5+ and Topflite Gamer, TM Burner. Also validated my experience that the nike pdsoft and noodle are great balls for the money. I use them as my winter balls and have had been really pleased.

Oh by the way the Target's here in Portland OR have TP Black and Red on sale for $20.98 dozen - great price. [/quote]

Considering they were around $50 a dozen when they came out last year. Great Price.

Curious how much better the LDP versions that are supposed to be coming out will be.

[Veritas]

[quote name='EDOE' post='856244' date='Jan 9 2008, 03:29 PM'][quote name='cb_golfer' post='855907' date='Jan 9 2008, 09:35 AM'][quote name='turnbowm' post='855365' date='Jan 8 2008, 07:50 PM'][quote name='klpra' post='853344' date='Jan 7 2008, 06:55 PM']Top 5 balls for distance at 90 mph swing speed. 137 MPH ball speed. 13.75 degree launch angle. 2900 rpm were:

1. TM TP Black- 259.1
2. Noodle+- 259.0
3. TM TP Red- 258.6
4. NXT Extreme- 257.5
5. PD Soft- 255.9[/quote]

Those are pretty "healthy" distances for a 137mph ball speed. Wish that it was so.....

[/quote]

What was the stimp reading on the fairways? By this logic, all the 105 swingers should be averaging 290+.
[/quote]

Yeah no kidding I would have to hit the cart path for it to go 290+. So the fairways must be concrete

Eric
[/quote]

They had the carry distances as well and the ball rolled ~30 yards on all the 105 ss tests. I really don't think there is any fudging of the numbers. I for one will trust golf magazine enough to not have that kind of ethical problem.

[502 to Right]

Just read the article. I'm much happier with this kind of analysis than a "Hot List" which is so subjective as to be meaningless. It's not perfect but it's a huge, huge step in the right direction.

Based on the results (and my game), I will now be playing the Bridgestone e5+. Sorry Titleist NXT Tour (my old ball)--which is now overpriced for lesser performance. It also pleases me to leave technology that was "borrowed" from Bridgestone in the first place.

[DEGOINS]

Theres a quote from Ishii himself in the test that basically says that the NOP IS NOT for the average player. He says it was built for a player of Tigers caliber who is not worried about distance.

[DEGOINS]

"One very positive thing about this article is hopefully it will discourage the average golfer from using hign end tour ball that will not help their game just because their favorite tour player plays that ball."


I think that was the whole point of the article and some of you can't seem to grasp that! They wanted to give the AVERAGE golfer info to help them select a ball to help their game. A player with a much higher swing speed already has a general idea of what balls help theirs.

[hosierd]

It might have been more informative if the test included included a range of attack angles.

I'm an unintentional high spin player due to a tendancy to get steep. The e6 really cuts down the spin I generate with my swing. I would like to have seen data on swings like my own . . .

[bladestriker]

Putting so much merit in these articles is why the average joe stays average (or below). FWIW I don't even play the Nike One Platinum, so I was not defending it. I don't care what is hot listed. I care about my score and playing what works.
To the few who now have pissed me off, keep playing the ball listed as *hot* or top of their magazines *list* and , in no particular order, wearing your belt towel, playing driver to putter (with iron covers) from the same manufacturer(bag matching) ,in your staff bag, with 50' ball retriever, shooting in the 90's and saying your short game keeps you from scratch, hitting an inch behind the ball, and all the other things that scream HACK! Due to your ignorance , you deserve it.

[Eddie]

edit:.. I blasted someone thinking no one had picked up the lack of intelligence in his posting, but looks like I should've read the whole thread and seen the deed had already been done, LOL.

To dansrixon's comments, for a player who swings faster than the robot did in the test, I found the z-urs to be a near ideal ball for me.

[Deadpool_25]

[quote name='EDOE' post='856244' date='Jan 9 2008, 04:29 PM'][quote name='cb_golfer' post='855907' date='Jan 9 2008, 09:35 AM'][quote name='turnbowm' post='855365' date='Jan 8 2008, 07:50 PM'][quote name='klpra' post='853344' date='Jan 7 2008, 06:55 PM']Top 5 balls for distance at 90 mph swing speed. 137 MPH ball speed. 13.75 degree launch angle. 2900 rpm were:

1. TM TP Black- 259.1
2. Noodle+- 259.0
3. TM TP Red- 258.6
4. NXT Extreme- 257.5
5. PD Soft- 255.9[/quote]

Those are pretty "healthy" distances for a 137mph ball speed. Wish that it was so.....

[/quote]

What was the stimp reading on the fairways? By this logic, all the 105 swingers should be averaging 290+.
[/quote]

Yeah no kidding I would have to hit the cart path for it to go 290+. So the fairways must be concrete

Eric
[/quote]


Where'd they test? When I was in Tucson I was in the 290+ range most of the time and I'm around 105 - 106 on the Vector. Elevation there is around 2,700 feet. HELL of a lot shorter on the Gulf Coast though.

edit: I see they were in San Diego so lower elevation. I do see that the balls were rolling about 30 yds, so yeah...fairways were pretty firm.

[Deadpool_25]

One thing I found interesting was that the ProV1x has a softer cover than the ProV1. Did that change since the intro of the V1x? I thought it used to have a harder cover. I know it seemed to feel harder around the greens and I thought it spun less too. Looks like I need to move to the V1x from the V1.

The one thing I like about the ProV1s vs. any other balls I've tried is that I can play them until I lose them. The covers don't shred like the NOP or the Cally HX balls. That was a couple of years ago though. Might be time to try a few of the new balls.

Great article IMO.

[littleprov1x]

Damn, whatever fairways those were, I want to play on them all the time. I swing right at 105 and have almost the same launch parameters and I rarely get it out there 290. Carry seems about right though.

[longdrive55]

"Why can't we all just get along?"

[cb_golfer]

[quote name='Deadpool_25' post='857034' date='Jan 9 2008, 08:54 PM'][quote name='EDOE' post='856244' date='Jan 9 2008, 04:29 PM'][quote name='cb_golfer' post='855907' date='Jan 9 2008, 09:35 AM'][quote name='turnbowm' post='855365' date='Jan 8 2008, 07:50 PM'][quote name='klpra' post='853344' date='Jan 7 2008, 06:55 PM']Top 5 balls for distance at 90 mph swing speed. 137 MPH ball speed. 13.75 degree launch angle. 2900 rpm were:

1. TM TP Black- 259.1
2. Noodle+- 259.0
3. TM TP Red- 258.6
4. NXT Extreme- 257.5
5. PD Soft- 255.9[/quote]

Those are pretty "healthy" distances for a 137mph ball speed. Wish that it was so.....

[/quote]

What was the stimp reading on the fairways? By this logic, all the 105 swingers should be averaging 290+.
[/quote]

Yeah no kidding I would have to hit the cart path for it to go 290+. So the fairways must be concrete

Eric
[/quote]


Where'd they test? When I was in Tucson I was in the 290+ range most of the time and I'm around 105 - 106 on the Vector. Elevation there is around 2,700 feet. HELL of a lot shorter on the Gulf Coast though.

edit: I see they were in San Diego so lower elevation. I do see that the balls were rolling about 30 yds, so yeah...fairways were pretty firm.
[/quote]


[quote name='littleprov1x' post='857054' date='Jan 9 2008, 09:14 PM']Damn, whatever fairways those were, I want to play on them all the time. I swing right at 105 and have almost the same launch parameters and I rarely get it out there 290. Carry seems about right though.[/quote]


Still skeptical on the distance. PGA Tour "average of the averages" was 289 yards for 196 players (Bubba Watson to Corey Pavin). If only this article came out before the 2007 season then it could have helped all the players.

[ApexGrind]

[quote name='bladestriker' post='856574' date='Jan 9 2008, 04:27 PM']Putting so much merit in these articles is why the average joe stays average (or below). FWIW I don't even play the Nike One Platinum, so I was not defending it. I don't care what is hot listed. I care about my score and playing what works.
To the few who now have pissed me off, keep playing the ball listed as *hot* or top of their magazines *list* and , in no particular order, wearing your belt towel, playing driver to putter (with iron covers) from the same manufacturer(bag matching) ,in your staff bag, with 50' ball retriever, shooting in the 90's and saying your short game keeps you from scratch, hitting an inch behind the ball, and all the other things that scream HACK! Due to your ignorance , you deserve it.[/quote]

I really don't understand why this article/test has irked you so much. Or your opinion of it.
I doubt that many pros are going to golf digest for their information. I doubt that many single digit handicapers are going to golf digest for this sort of information. It's pretty clear this magazine and ones like it are aimed at the average golfer. 90mph to 105mph might cover 80 to 90% of golfers? The test was done with a robot with a single swing to remove variables other than the golf ball which was the subject of the test. Are you saying that if angle of attack, for example, was changed that the RELATIVE rankings would change? That the highest spinning ball might exchange places with the middle spinning ball? In general, I don't think so.

I have never seen this sort of comparison before. It's exactly the sort of comparison I'm looking for. I don't care about distance. I want the softest feeling ball with the most spin for my short game and putting. I'd play a hacky sack if I could. I used to play maxfli wound balatas until they quit making them. Then I played Titleist wound balatas until they quit making them. Now I play Pro V1s. Each one of those has been a progressive change to a harder feeling ball. I don't want to try every ball out there but I'll give the Nike Platinum a shot now because of the spin ratings. I'm sure my angle of attack etc. aren't the same as in the test but I have a fairly good expectation that the highest rated spin ball will spin more than the others for me too. Don't you agree?

[Baconator]

[quote name='Deadpool_25' post='857045' date='Jan 10 2008, 12:05 AM']The one thing I like about the ProV1s vs. any other balls I've tried is that I can play them until I lose them. The covers don't shred like the NOP or the Cally HX balls. That was a couple of years ago though. Might be time to try a few of the new balls.[/quote]


Since you mentioned it, my personal experience with the HX Tour 56 (can't say with the HX Tour) is that it lasts really well. I have a ball that I used for three rounds and finally retired. I don't know what's more amazing - that it lasted so long without any serious scuffs or that I was able to go that long without losing a ball. I'm really hoping they start clearing them out because I'd love to get some more at <$30/doz.

[ColinMB]

I finally got my issue and poured over the results. I am actually very surprised that my own thoughts on some of these balls (that I tested) turned out to be very close to their findings in some cases.

Case and point: I tried to like the Nike One balls... lord knows I did. I bought two dozen NOB's until I gave up. Now I see why. For someone like me, that ball is just plain... mediocre.

Another perfect example is that in early last season I was a die hard Bstone E6 buyer until I got my hands on the Titty NXT Tour. I swore it went further, was fairly straight, yet had decent spin on wedges. Turns out it wasn't just my imagination.

I know these are 'robot' tests but this is as close to an 'all things being equal' environment as a guy like me is ever going to have access to. For -my swing-, I think this issue confirmed a few things for me, and I for one love the article, and hope they do a bit more of this sort of thing.

[maggie]

Saw the equipment editor for Golf Magazine on street this morning and gave him kudos for the great golf ball test article and asked for more of these types of articles. Maybe the positive feedback will encourage them to continue.....

[bpratt]

[quote name='Deadpool_25' post='857045' date='Jan 10 2008, 01:05 AM']One thing I found interesting was that the ProV1x has a softer cover than the ProV1. Did that change since the intro of the V1x? I thought it used to have a harder cover. I know it seemed to feel harder around the greens and I thought it spun less too. Looks like I need to move to the V1x from the V1.[/quote]

This was the most surprising fact in the test to me, too. Isn't the whole point of the X to spin LESS than the regular V1? And how can the cover be softer on the X? It just doesn't feel that way.

At any rate, I might try the regular V1 again. I've been playing X's for years because of the "lower" spin, and I thought I was sacrificing a little feel to get it...Weird.

[502 to Right]

One of my only complaints about the article is that I would have liked to have seen all of the listings in the feel/softness testing. They only published 24 of the 53 balls tested.

[ApexGrind]

[quote name='bpratt' post='857444' date='Jan 10 2008, 07:51 AM']This was the most surprising fact in the test to me, too. Isn't the whole point of the X to spin LESS than the regular V1? And how can the cover be softer on the X? It just doesn't feel that way.

At any rate, I might try the regular V1 again. I've been playing X's for years because of the "lower" spin, and I thought I was sacrificing a little feel to get it...Weird.[/quote]

I'm talking in the dark here since I don't get the mag. Was that off the driver or wedge? I guess feel could be different than what you expect? Maybe a softer thinner cover over something harder. Very different feel and characteristics when hit with a driver than when hit with a wedge. I thought that was the whole deal behind the ProVs.

[BEND OF THE RIVER GC]

[b]QUOTE:[/b] [color="#708090"]Putting so much merit in these articles is why the average joe stays average (or below). FWIW I don't even play the Nike One Platinum, so I was not defending it. I don't care what is hot listed. I care about my score and playing what works.
To the few who now have pissed me off, keep playing the ball listed as *hot* or top of their magazines *list* and , in no particular order, wearing your belt towel, playing driver to putter (with iron covers) from the same manufacturer(bag matching) ,in your staff bag, with 50' ball retriever, shooting in the 90's and saying your short game keeps you from scratch, hitting an inch behind the ball, and all the other things that scream HACK! Due to your ignorance , you deserve it. [/color] [b]QUOTE[/b]

[b][color="#FF8C00"]It might do you some good to check out your Dr.'s "Hotlist" of [i]Sertonin Reuptake Inhibitors"[/color][/i]...[/b]

The GOLF magazine ball test had some good information as a "starting point" to assist with ball choice...if you know and really understand your game you'll end up picking similar stuff that s on their list anyway.

[danimal]

[quote name='ApexGrind' post='857198' date='Jan 10 2008, 01:22 AM']I want the softest feeling ball with the most spin for my short game and putting. I'd play a hacky sack if I could. I used to play maxfli wound balatas until they quit making them. Then I played Titleist wound balatas until they quit making them.[/quote]


I'm curious if you've tried the titliest tour prestige? I believe it's low cost a wound ball. I got a box for xmas and have been wondering if I should give them a try or give them away to a friend as it's not part of my usual "ball diet"?

[bladestriker]

[quote name='ApexGrind' post='857198' date='Jan 10 2008, 01:22 AM'][quote name='bladestriker' post='856574' date='Jan 9 2008, 04:27 PM']Putting so much merit in these articles is why the average joe stays average (or below). FWIW I don't even play the Nike One Platinum, so I was not defending it. I don't care what is hot listed. I care about my score and playing what works.
To the few who now have pissed me off, keep playing the ball listed as *hot* or top of their magazines *list* and , in no particular order, wearing your belt towel, playing driver to putter (with iron covers) from the same manufacturer(bag matching) ,in your staff bag, with 50' ball retriever, shooting in the 90's and saying your short game keeps you from scratch, hitting an inch behind the ball, and all the other things that scream HACK! Due to your ignorance , you deserve it.[/quote]

I really don't understand why this article/test has irked you so much. Or your opinion of it.
I doubt that many pros are going to golf digest for their information. I doubt that many single digit handicapers are going to golf digest for this sort of information. It's pretty clear this magazine and ones like it are aimed at the average golfer. 90mph to 105mph might cover 80 to 90% of golfers? The test was done with a robot with a single swing to remove variables other than the golf ball which was the subject of the test. Are you saying that if angle of attack, for example, was changed that the RELATIVE rankings would change? That the highest spinning ball might exchange places with the middle spinning ball? In general, I don't think so.

I have never seen this sort of comparison before. It's exactly the sort of comparison I'm looking for. I don't care about distance. I want the softest feeling ball with the most spin for my short game and putting. I'd play a hacky sack if I could. I used to play maxfli wound balatas until they quit making them. Then I played Titleist wound balatas until they quit making them. Now I play Pro V1s. Each one of those has been a progressive change to a harder feeling ball. I don't want to try every ball out there but I'll give the Nike Platinum a shot now because of the spin ratings. I'm sure my angle of attack etc. aren't the same as in the test but I have a fairly good expectation that the highest rated spin ball will spin more than the others for me too. Don't you agree?

[/quote]
Probably, not definitely, but it would take too much to debate it

My tirade was directed at two people only.

I wasn't heated until I felt somebody was being a punk and disrespectful.

It's just my opinion that if your reading a magazine to pick your ball instead of doing launch or range testing your making a mistake , thats what I trying to say. If you are trying to optimize your ball I think you are trying to get the most out of your game and hopefully trying to get better, I am saying that is not the way(magazine test), thats all. I just think it's not the magic pill it is being touted as.

I am probably close to you in choice. I can hit it far enough and want a ball that I can controll that feels great.Having said that I have had to find a low spinning driver/shaft combo that will not balloon. Too me the ball off the driver is maybe third priority.

[502 to Right]

[quote name='bladestriker' post='858437' date='Jan 10 2008, 10:14 PM']It's just my opinion that if your reading a magazine to pick your ball instead of doing launch or range testing your making a mistake , thats what I trying to say. If you are trying to optimize your ball I think you are trying to get the most out of your game and hopefully trying to get better, I am saying that is not the way(magazine test), thats all. I just think it's not the magic pill it is being touted as.[/quote]

You've made some valid points but I think the flaw to your statement above is that you assume everyone has the same dedication to improve their game that you do. Quite frankly, most golfers don't have the time, money, or desire to do a ball testing. The article will, for the most part, help those golfers choose a ball that will help them play the game better. You might find this objectionable and a cheap short cut, but that is the reality.

For a golfer who lives, breathes, and loves the game--yes--a ball fitting is a very good way to play the game better. But that golfer is in the minority.