Ball Test - Golf magazine

[tj36]

I thought it was interesting that the e5 did so well, especially since I thought the same thing the few times I've found one on the course and wound up using it. Def. gonna give those a try.

[alexthegrrr8]

I haven't seen the Golf Magazine that you guys are referring to but I plan on picking one up just because.

But, I have been sifting the posts and it looks like my ball of choice isn't a bad choice at all. I've been playing Tx4 and Px3 almost exclusively since I started playing. I've always said that the Tx4 was right there with Pro V. I did try the 50 this summer and I was surprised with it. My only complaint was that off the putter it was soft...too soft. Try the Tx4 ball though fellow "wrxers" if you want to try something that tastes a little different...it's a good ball.

Anyone that knows me out here will say that I may be a bit of a "homer" when it comes to Wilson Staff so you may think that I'm partial. But really I'm not. When something of mine that I like stinks I easily admit it (see the Toronto Maple Leafs of the NHL). I just have had great success with Wilson Staff products I'm not brand loyal but I guess you could say that I'm close enough.

Alex

[bpratt]

[quote name='ApexGrind' post='858042' date='Jan 10 2008, 07:52 PM'][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.
[/quote]


I should have mentioned that: spin was higher on the X from both the wedge and the driver, and the cover measured as softer. Weird.

[The Boom Bapp]

Somebody of Golf Magazines stature found it important enough to even perform the test that they most certainly did not have to.

Can we not be thankful in the slightest of what they are supplying?

Prior to Golf Magazines published findings, there has never been a more diverse test of golf balls prior that provided as much information and to that extent. Not a single one of us here is prepared to perform a more in-depth analysis so why b**** and wine about the test not being "exact" enough to meet everyone’s standards! That expectation is impossible to meet unless individual fittings are done.

Look at this as a beginning of a better way to improve individually, we will only see more tests of better quality in the future that are more informative and targeted and all we can do is except the factors they employ for each test and try to apply them to our own as best we can. Some tests may be contradictive but that is a given and must be taken into account.

If anyone else can perform these demonstrations better than a publication who has all the amenities possible at their disposal, then I would love to see it. GM performed this test as best they could to assist the massive numbers of "Average" Golfers that fit a certain criteria whether they are new to the game or seasoned players.

I took the test for what it was worth and used it as best I could trying to take advantage of what they provided even though I was firmly aware that I did not fit the criteria in which they tested. I found I am playing the right ball according to my attributes and yes the test is not perfect but to this date, a better ball fitting process does not exist.

GM just revealed the direction in which the game may be moving for 2008.

[teak]

[quote name='TUJJ' post='856223' date='Jan 9 2008, 08:17 PM']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?[/quote]
Yep, a few 2008 golf balls included. Tour iX and i, NXT Extreme, HX Hot Bite, Burner, Top Flite Freak & Gamer, Noodle+. Not the e6+ I'm afraid. Shamefully Bridgestone have never really released the original E5/E6 range properly over here, let alone the new versions. Maybe we need to get TG to start an E5/E6 campaign?

Didn't TGs previous numbers get complaints about being low? Or was that due to using a 48* wedge while other mags use 56*? I do know their recent wedge review got questioned over extremely low numbers that were closer to driver spin, no mention of what ball was used, no mention of swing speed, etc. They use a PGA Pro for the numbers, so maybe not ideal for relating to average golfer swing speeds. But all credit to Today's Golfer for publishing numbers, just could do with a few improvements to make them a bit more meaningful and set in context.

I would like to see more robotic testing in conjuction with human testing. Ideally using trackman and at different swing speeds so we can see how it relates to all golfers. Human feedback will always be needed for feel, on course performance, etc. Robotic testing isn't perfect, but you can dial in the settings to reduce the variables and inconsistencies that might skew results or cloud the differences. Also now manufacturers are releasing 'forgiving' balls for 2008, maybe you can dial in a consistent mishit and compare dispersion and sidespin?

Will be interesting to compare the golf mag (robotic) and TGs (pro) results. If the results don't generally follow, then that raises questions about the two different methods and which one is more useful. Here are just a handful of numbers to keep you going (9 deg Driver, 48 deg PW, SS unknown, LM unknown):

TP Red---------: 262yds 2972rpm, 125yds 5178rpm
TP Black--------: 269yds 2864rpm, 127yds 3690rpm
Z-URS----------: 254yds 2750rpm, 123yds 5181rpm
Z-URC----------: 268yds 2226rpm, 125yds 4256rpm
One Black ------: 265yds 3042rpm, 126yds 4984rpm
One Platinum----: 266yds 2750rpm, 128yds 4490rpm
Tour B330-------: 258yds 2844rpm, 127yds 3985rpm
Tour B330S------: 255yds 2876rpm, 125yds 4284rpm
Pro V1-----------: 264yds 2942rpm, 126yds 5324rpm
Pro V1x----------: 271yds 2681rpm, 129yds 4765rpm
Tour iX----------: 270yds 2275rpm, 129yds 4517rpm
Tour i-----------: 268yds 2561rpm, 127yds 4772rpm
Tx4 Pro---------: 257yds 2840rpm, 126yds 4647rpm

PTS Solo---------: 260yds 2253rpm, 124yds 4282rpm
NXT Extreme-----: 269yds 3426rpm, 129yds 4729rpm
NXT Tour--------: 268yds 3219rpm, 129yds 4890rpm
Big Bertha-------: 272yds 2552rpm, 128yds 4604rpm
HX Hot Bite------: 262yds 2705rpm, 128yds 4336rpm
HX Hot ----------: 268yds 1904rpm, 133yds 4327rpm
Ignite -----------: 261yds 2819rpm, 128yds 3654rpm
Power Dist Long--: 275yds 2174rpm, 138yds 2471rpm
Power Dist Soft---: 257yds 2989rpm, 125yds 3189rpm
Karma------------: 249yds 3031rpm, 127yds 4636rpm
Px3 Soft Spin-----: 258yds 3310rpm, 123yds 4539rpm
Dx2 Soft----------: 249yds 2763rpm, 126yds 4911rpm
AD333-------------: 265yds 2483rpm, 131yds 4848rpm
Trispeed----------: 263yds 2647rpm, 136yds 5141rpm
Soft Feel----------: 257yds 3001rpm, 126yds 5224rpm
Burner------------: 262yds 2839rpm, 129yds 4736rpm
Burner TP---------: 264yds 2744rpm, 127yds 5615rpm

Freak-------------: 273yds 2344rpm, 127yds 3315rpm
Gamer-------------: 266yds 2514rpm, 135yds 2730rpm
Noodle+-----------: 262yds 2706rpm, 130yds 3549rpm
Warbird-----------: 258yds 1750rpm, 124yds 3482rpm

Should mention some balls do also have numbers from the 8hcp and 3hcp golfers who helped in the review. But no mention of swing speeds.

So according to TG, the Burner TP, Srixon Soft feel and Trispeed all have more wedge spin than most premium balls? That the NXT Tour and Dx2 Soft spin nearly as much as a Nike One Black. The Nike Karma, Burner, NXT Extreme, AD333, etc are all up there too. Does that sound right? Or are TG's testing methods not showing up the differences correctly?

What happened to the Callaway Warbird? Has it changed for 2008? Did TG mess up this years numbers or the previous ones? Because if you believed the last two TG ball reviews, the Warbird was a suprise budget ball with premium ball-like spin (5702rpm vs ProV1's 5215rpm in TG's 2007 review) and left them scratching their heads. Not just once, but 2yrs in a row. Now it's only doing 3482rpm. If their testing got that wrong, what else?

[pocketfulladoubles]

The test doesn't cover enough variables to be considered scientific. This is fine for a pop magazine, but in the end it is relatively useless. What they should have done is vary and isolate the ball flight parameters (speed, launch angle, and backspin) for each ball through testing and given a plug-and-play equation for each. Then, you and I at home could have taken our values from a launch monitor, plug them into the equation or some matrix, and pick the ball. Giving us data for a particular swing speed and launch condition is just not very useful.

[BEND OF THE RIVER GC]

[quote name='bladestriker' post='858437' date='Jan 10 2008, 11:14 PM'][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.
[/quote]

You hit the nail righ on the head: Finding out your priority, is it Driver Distance, Iron performance or around and on the greens. I am like you, driver distance is my third priority and I am by no means a LONG (or short) hitter off the tee.

[Veritas]

One thing I'm wondering and maybe someone here can answer this. How much does spin have to change for someone to really notice off of the wedges. I doubt there is much of a difference between a ball spinning 100 rpm more but is 1000 rpm more enough to notice a difference, or 2000, or 3000, etc. You get the picture. Does anybody know?

[The Boom Bapp]

[quote name='The Boom Bapp' post='859085' date='Jan 11 2008, 12:25 PM']a better ball fitting process does not exist.[/quote]


A better fitting process does exist. So, I take back a portion of what I stated above.

[url="http://www.golfballselector.com"]ball Selector[/url]

[Mward2002]

Yeah, but at $19.95 for a one time shot? I boo that, HEAVILY.

[DrSchteeve]

All said and done it looked to me like the NXT Tour was hard to beat all around....

[DrSchteeve]

[quote name='Mward2002' post='859471' date='Jan 11 2008, 04:55 PM']Yeah, but at $19.95 for a one time shot? I boo that, HEAVILY.[/quote]

Me, too. Wish I'd thought of it...

[Mward2002]

I know right?! Give me 20 bucks, I'll listen to your lies, throw a dart against a board, and tell you to use whatever ball I hit.

Post previous mentioned that an NXT Tour was the best ball all around.. That doesn't surprise me based on the fact it's the next best Titleist. When I saw the numbers, it looked like the TP Black/Red was really the best premium ball for people who can't swing over 105 MPH (which I don't).

I'm excited for the Top Flite Gamer and the Noodle+. Both looked pretty good stat wise for my swing speed. Burner and Burner TP looked interesting, I may have to give those a try after I go through a box of TP black's

[Rockfish]

[quote name='bladestriker' post='856574' date='Jan 9 2008, 07:27 PM']Putting so much merit in these articles is why the average joe stays average (or below).[/quote]

Actually i didn't even read the article (but I will)


[quote]To the few who now have pissed me off, keep playing the ball listed as *hot* or top of their magazines *list*[/quote]

Nope

[quote]and, in no particular order, wearing your belt towel,[/quote]

Nope

[quote]playing driver to putter (with iron covers) from the same manufacturer(bag matching),[/quote]

Nope, nope, and nope.


[quote]in your staff bag,[/quote]

Nope.


[quote]with ball retriever,[/quote]

Nope.


[quote]shooting in the 90's[/quote]

Nope.


[quote]and saying your short game keeps you from scratch,[/quote]

Nope (sounds like that may be YOU though )


[quote]hitting an inch behind the ball[/quote]

Nope.




Damn. 0 for 10. You would have thought you'd get just ONE right, even by accident !

You'd better watch it now - they may take that that low member number away from you !!!


But if it's any consolation to you you DO have a lower handicap than I - by .7

Nice try anyway - thanks for playing though !

C'mon now - can I get a Kum ba ya !!! How about a group hug ?!?!?!

[bladestriker]

[quote name='502 to Right' post='858470' date='Jan 10 2008, 08:39 PM'][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.
[/quote]
You are right, I agree.


[quote name='Rockfish' post='859735' date='Jan 11 2008, 05:09 PM']But if it's any consolation to you you DO have a lower handicap than I - by .7

Nice try anyway - thanks for playing though !

C'mon now - can I get a Kum ba ya !!! How about a group hug ?!?!?! [/quote]

Through attrition you win I give up.
Yer good, but a .7 or a short game away from great Practice more, your post count is way too high for being a member for 4 1/2 months Nothing worse than a vanity handicap.

xoxo

[byrd03_2000]

Picked up the magazine today. I thought it was a fairly good overview to give golfers a good idea at some different balls to try. At the very least it can steer people in the right direction. Obviously there's no substitute for actual hands on testing either on a range or course, but it was probably as comprehensive as you could expect an article geared toward golfers of all skill levels to be.

[salmotrutta]

I thought it was pretty interesting and helpful as well. I will stipulate that a test like this can't be perfect, but what it does seem to do is give folks a starting point - maybe 5 or so balls to try as opposed to having to sort through 30 or 40.

[502 to Right]

[quote name='DrSchteeve' post='859478' date='Jan 11 2008, 03:58 PM']All said and done it looked to me like the NXT Tour was hard to beat all around....[/quote]


Interesting you say that because I have played the NXT Tour for years and I calculate that the Bridgestone e5+ is as good, if not better, for $5 less per dozen.

[TUJJ]

Based on Today`s Golfers test my next season TOP 5 golfballs are:

Srixon Trispeed
Titleist NXT TOUR
Burner TP
NXT Extreme
AD 333

I´ve played both Titleist balls and AD333 so need go to test Burner TP and Trispeed.

[TUJJ]

[quote name='teak' post='859093' date='Jan 11 2008, 07:34 PM'][quote name='TUJJ' post='856223' date='Jan 9 2008, 08:17 PM']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?[/quote]

TP Red---------: 262yds 2972rpm, 125yds 5178rpm
TP Black--------: 269yds 2864rpm, 127yds 3690rpm
Z-URS----------: 254yds 2750rpm, 123yds 5181rpm
Z-URC----------: 268yds 2226rpm, 125yds 4256rpm
One Black ------: 265yds 3042rpm, 126yds 4984rpm
One Platinum----: 266yds 2750rpm, 128yds 4490rpm
Tour B330-------: 258yds 2844rpm, 127yds 3985rpm
Tour B330S------: 255yds 2876rpm, 125yds 4284rpm
Pro V1-----------: 264yds 2942rpm, 126yds 5324rpm
Pro V1x----------: 271yds 2681rpm, 129yds 4765rpm
Tour iX----------: 270yds 2275rpm, 129yds 4517rpm
Tour i-----------: 268yds 2561rpm, 127yds 4772rpm
[b]Tx4 Pro---------: 257yds 2840rpm, 126yds 4647rpm
[/b]
PTS Solo---------: 260yds 2253rpm, 124yds 4282rpm
NXT Extreme-----: 269yds 3426rpm, 129yds 4729rpm
NXT Tour--------: 268yds 3219rpm, 129yds 4890rpm
Big Bertha-------: 272yds 2552rpm, 128yds 4604rpm
HX Hot Bite------: 262yds 2705rpm, 128yds 4336rpm
HX Hot ----------: 268yds 1904rpm, 133yds 4327rpm
Ignite -----------: 261yds 2819rpm, 128yds 3654rpm
Power Dist Long--: 275yds 2174rpm, 138yds 2471rpm
Power Dist Soft---: 257yds 2989rpm, 125yds 3189rpm
Karma------------: 249yds 3031rpm, 127yds 4636rpm
Px3 Soft Spin-----: 258yds 3310rpm, 123yds 4539rpm
Dx2 Soft----------: 249yds 2763rpm, 126yds 4911rpm
AD333-------------: 265yds 2483rpm, 131yds 4848rpm
Trispeed----------: 263yds 2647rpm, 136yds 5141rpm
Soft Feel----------: 257yds 3001rpm, 126yds 5224rpm
Burner------------: 262yds 2839rpm, 129yds 4736rpm
Burner TP---------: 264yds 2744rpm, 127yds 5615rpm

Freak-------------: 273yds 2344rpm, 127yds 3315rpm
Gamer-------------: 266yds 2514rpm, 135yds 2730rpm
Noodle+-----------: 262yds 2706rpm, 130yds 3549rpm
Warbird-----------: 258yds 1750rpm, 124yds 3482rpm


[/quote]

What happened to TX4, used to be longest???

[teak]

[quote name='TUJJ' post='861559' date='Jan 13 2008, 12:21 PM'][quote name='teak' post='859093' date='Jan 11 2008, 07:34 PM']
TP Red---------: 262yds 2972rpm, 125yds 5178rpm
TP Black--------: 269yds 2864rpm, 127yds 3690rpm
Z-URS----------: 254yds 2750rpm, 123yds 5181rpm
Z-URC----------: 268yds 2226rpm, 125yds 4256rpm
One Black ------: 265yds 3042rpm, 126yds 4984rpm
One Platinum----: 266yds 2750rpm, 128yds 4490rpm
Tour B330-------: 258yds 2844rpm, 127yds 3985rpm
Tour B330S------: 255yds 2876rpm, 125yds 4284rpm
Pro V1-----------: 264yds 2942rpm, 126yds 5324rpm
Pro V1x----------: 271yds 2681rpm, 129yds 4765rpm
Tour iX----------: 270yds 2275rpm, 129yds 4517rpm
Tour i-----------: 268yds 2561rpm, 127yds 4772rpm
[b]Tx4 Pro---------: 257yds 2840rpm, 126yds 4647rpm
[/b][/quote]

What happened to TX4, used to be longest???
[/quote]
Good question, last years TG golf review had it 9yds longer than the others, yet this time the Pro V1x is longest. These little inconsistencies in TGs numbers are what concerns me. Certainly hope someone can post the golf magazine numbers for comparison. See if they match up.

[chris17931]

Well, I just read this entire thread, and the main thing I came away with is that anyone who would point to their member number and/or post count as an indicator of credibility or due respect is ridiculous. Of course, almost all of my clubs are from the same manufacturer, so obviously I am also a moron who doesn't know s*** from shinola.

Seriously, the point of this test is to remove all the subjective crap (e.g., 'buzz factor' or simple player variability) that gums up most other kinds of comparisons/reviews like this. When trying to do a true apples-to-apples comparison, you have to remove as many other variables as possible. That is what this test does. Don't look at it and say or "that's not my exact swingspeed" or "what about angle of attack". Comments like "oh I never get those distances so it must be bs" also miss the point: all of the ball-striking variables and course conditions were the same for each test/ball, allowing a valid RELATIVE comparison to be made. Since we are not robots (except Tiger, of course, as we all know), we can then take this comparison, make adjustments for our own abilities and experience, and have a pretty good starting point for fine-tuning to find THE ball for your particular game.

Oh, and I am definitely using the wrong ball for my game. Looking forward to using them up and getting something more appropriate. In the meantime, the TX4 makes it easy to know which ball I find in the woods is actually mine.

[Robmc826]

Out of all the info about this ball test. which ball gives the lowest driver spin. but also gives the most wedge spin?

[SoftFade_Ga]

I found the article to be a good gauge and a good reference to how those balls stack up against each other under similar test. Of course its not an end all list but a good starting point. Kind of like reading posts about clubs on this site, its all just a reference point.

I select my ball from the green backwards so I tend to focus on Category 1 balls and those that are close to it. I look for a ball with good spin and a good feel off of the putter. Like others I hit the ball long enough where the yardage off the tee is not a big issue.

From the looks of the ball test most of the balls are similar in length or at least within a club of each other. For me that means that the spin off of a wedge or 8iron is more important for me.

It looks like there are some pretty good options this year.

[KJ25]

Taylormade TP balls are clearly the choice for 90s driver SS unless you don't want max distance. The difference is eye opening and I have found the new TP red to be even better than previous version. Staying with the TM TP balls. I imagine you could ultimately run the same test yourself on the monitor but the article really clarified some things. TM has done a good job creating high performers for serious amateurs.

[JayManMtl]

I think one can look at this info and find a few interesting figures - especially when you put these results against each other...

Let's suppose that money is not an issue here - because we want to find the best 'pure' ball...

---
One thing that jumps out is the little yardage difference coming from driver hits... the Top5 balls went, on average, only 3% further than the 263yds average... with every ball ranging from 95% to 104% of the average distance...

Obvisouly, the same can be said of distance from 8iron shots (don't know why this is a category!) every ball is in the 97%-107% window from the 128yds average...
---

On the other hand, spin disparity from the driver and 8iron is all over the map, going from 65% to 127% for drivers (2700rpm average) and from 56% to 128% for 8iron shots (4390rpm average)... and this is where I think we need to focus our attention when trying to find the better balls... since distance is clearly not an issue while spin sure seems like one...

Looking into this... bare with me here... I've come up with the SSRP (stands for the Squared Spin Ratio Percentage) which is the percentage value of the 8iron-spin squared divided by the driver-spin value...

Take a minute and think about the SSRP... which puts more emphasis on the 8iron spin value and less on the driver figure... and we obvisouly are looking at higher spin values for 8iron shots and lower spin values for driver shots...

From this, the best balls were (SSRP figures):[list=1]
[*]Burner TP - 156.2%;
[*]Trispeed - 135.8%;
[*]HX Hot - 133.7%;
[*]ZURS - 132.7%;
[*]Pro V1 - 132.0%.
[/list]Evidently, there are many factors that have to be included in the equation: price, shot dispersion, hardness... but looking only at the yardage and spin values... this is what I came up with.

[roberthd]

All in all, Golf Magazine is to be commended. Extraordinarily informative and more thorough testing than most. Kudos...and way more info than in the Golf Digest Hot List, though perhaps that's an impossible comparison.

[Brock]

i agree as you got to read what the balls are saying given identical parameters.....and spin off a wedge or 8i is more varied than off drivers....

I am looking forward to the new balls and options available on the web site www.golfballselector.com to see how the new balls stack up. For now I am sticking with IGNITE, but will check the ones recommended above the IGNITES such as NOP, TP Red, ProV1x, Z-URC, NOB, B330(s), ProV1

[Rockfish]

[quote name='bladestriker' post='859800' date='Jan 11 2008, 08:47 PM'][quote name='502 to Right' post='858470' date='Jan 10 2008, 08:39 PM'][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.
[/quote]
You are right, I agree.


[quote name='Rockfish' post='859735' date='Jan 11 2008, 05:09 PM']But if it's any consolation to you you DO have a lower handicap than I - by .7

Nice try anyway - thanks for playing though !

C'mon now - can I get a Kum ba ya !!! How about a group hug ?!?!?! [/quote]

Through attrition you win I give up.
Yer good, but a .7 or a short game away from great Practice more, your post count is way too high for being a member for 4 1/2 months Nothing worse than a vanity handicap.

xoxo
[/quote]



Belligerent to the very end...... First you "give up" and then you take a shot ("vanity handicap")

Funny though - I was going to note your post count was way too low for someone with such a low member number.

I'd challenge you to a battle of wits but I refuse to fight an unarmed opponent.

Whatsa matta ? You such a longtime member and you don't want to "share" wit da rest of us ?

Now go ahead oh patron saint of golfwrx - you get the last word here - I am done with you !

Now that I'm all grow'd up it's not nearly as much fun shining the sun on that anthill with my spyglass anymore.

Later

[ck7000]

Anyone know what driver was used in the Golf Magazine test?

This will affect spin rates and distance. Maybe the poster who knows the Golf Magazine editor can confirm the driver brand. I cannot confirm, but I heard it was a 10.5 degree Taylor Made Superquad.

Anyone agree that we should not assume the Taylor Made balls will give everyone with a 90 MPH driver swing speed the best distance? Wouldn't the brand of driver have an impact?