How good do I need to be for the ball to make a difference in my game?

[bluedot]

22 hours ago, North Butte said:

The Surlyn vs. Balata thing circa 1990 was a no-brainer. If you needed distance or you couldn't afford $10-$15 worth of golf balls per round then you played Surlyn balls because they were *much* longer and far more durable. If distance was not your first priority or you were on a budget you played Balata balls because they were far more controllable. 

 

Apparently some people suffer from a form of nostalgia and imagine the situation is similar today. By around 2010 the industry had found ways to make balls with 100% of the distance AND 100% of the control AND 100% of the durability all wrapped up in one type of ball. The only downside was price and now a decade later even price no longer differs meaningfully if you're not in thrall to the big-name traditional OEM's. 

 

But hey, those same big companies are happy if someone will pay them more than the cost of a DTC urethane ball for a 2pc Surlyn one they can make cheaply and market as suited to golfers who "aren't good enough" for a better ball.

Good summary. 

 

One of the really odd things about these debates is how the "virtues" of two piece Surlyn balls seem to have grown over the years.  Back in the day they were longer; they aren't anymore.  Back in the day, they were MUCH cheaper, and that is now much less true, if it's true at all, if only because top-shelf balls last just as well.  Instead, today we read posts about two piece balls that magically perform better on off center hits, that launch higher and land softly, that magically assist lesser players despite unpredictable roll out distances on greens, and so on. 

 

Really, it's quite amazing what these balls can do for lesser players, and it's odd that the marketing departments of the manufacturers aren't advertising these attributes, and that the independent testing agencies haven't discovered any of this, either.  Makes one wonder...

 

I'll say it again: Back in the days of only two choices, NOBODY made the argument that cheap golf balls were better, unless they needed the yardage.  Somewhere along the way, at least on this board, it has become unacceptable to just say, "I don't want to spend money for better golf balls."  I really believe that's where all the magical properties of two-piece balls comes from.

[North Butte]

1 hour ago, bluedot said:

Good summary. 

 

One of the really odd things about these debates is how the "virtues" of two piece Surlyn balls seem to have grown over the years.  Back in the day they were longer; they aren't anymore.  Back in the day, they were MUCH cheaper, and that is now much less true, if it's true at all, if only because top-shelf balls last just as well.  Instead, today we read posts about two piece balls that magically perform better on off center hits, that launch higher and land softly, that magically assist lesser players despite unpredictable roll out distances on greens, and so on. 

 

Really, it's quite amazing what these balls can do for lesser players, and it's odd that the marketing departments of the manufacturers aren't advertising these attributes, and that the independent testing agencies haven't discovered any of this, either.  Makes one wonder...

 

I'll say it again: Back in the days of only two choices, NOBODY made the argument that cheap golf balls were better, unless they needed the yardage.  Somewhere along the way, at least on this board, it has become unacceptable to just say, "I don't want to spend money for better golf balls."  I really believe that's where all the magical properties of two-piece balls comes from.

While I don't disagree with anything you say, my theory is a bit different.

 

I think Bridgestone initially and eventually others were looking for any possible way to leverage people away from playing Pro V1. Not playing "Tour" balls generally but very specifically the Titleist flagship ball that dominated the market. They had an uphill battle getting any sort of large market share for their "Tour" balls among better players but there was some low-hanging fruit of people playing Pro V1 who did not consider themselves good players. That non-Tour ball space was a free for all where market share could be potentially increased a lot.

 

I'm thinking about circa 2011 when they kicked into high gear with two memes that eventually infected the entire industry. One was pushing the first-gen e6 ball as being "forgiving" in the sense of curing slices. The idea there was if you couldn't hit the ball straight or move it left or right at will then you can't play a Pro V1 because you're not good enough. The other was their driver-based "ball fitting" which basically was fishing for any little bit of extra driver distance and pitching the idea that other balls would go farther for you because "you can't compress" the Pro V1. 

 

Then Callaway and the others joined in but focused more on the "soft" meme. We all know that golfers on the whole prefer the ball to make a softer click at impact, especially with the putter. At the time Pro V1 and Pro V1x were plenty clicky so they capitalized on that feel/sound preference to pitch the idea that there's some downside to playing a ball that's "too hard for you". Basically a reworking of the "can't compress it" canard. 

 

I've actually played a few holes with a recent Chrome Soft ball and I do did not find it one bit "softer" feeling or sounding than the current Pro V1. Maybe even slightly the opposite. So interestingly (to me at least) I've now seen a couple Callaway marketing efforts that work in the idea of Chrome Soft being "more forgiving on mishits". They've recently seen the "softer is better" thing kind of get some blowback so they're coming around to the Bridgestone "you're not good enough" message.

[rondre3000]

I don't think it is so much about playing a "premium" ball as it is more about finding a ball that best fits your game. There are a plethora of choices based on feel, spin rates and price. Then you throw color into the mix. Chose based on your needs, not what your favorite golfer plays because their swing is their fingerprint. Your swing is YOUR swing.

[bluedot]

21 hours ago, North Butte said:

While I don't disagree with anything you say, my theory is a bit different.

 

I think Bridgestone initially and eventually others were looking for any possible way to leverage people away from playing Pro V1. Not playing "Tour" balls generally but very specifically the Titleist flagship ball that dominated the market. They had an uphill battle getting any sort of large market share for their "Tour" balls among better players but there was some low-hanging fruit of people playing Pro V1 who did not consider themselves good players. That non-Tour ball space was a free for all where market share could be potentially increased a lot.

 

I'm thinking about circa 2011 when they kicked into high gear with two memes that eventually infected the entire industry. One was pushing the first-gen e6 ball as being "forgiving" in the sense of curing slices. The idea there was if you couldn't hit the ball straight or move it left or right at will then you can't play a Pro V1 because you're not good enough. The other was their driver-based "ball fitting" which basically was fishing for any little bit of extra driver distance and pitching the idea that other balls would go farther for you because "you can't compress" the Pro V1. 

 

Then Callaway and the others joined in but focused more on the "soft" meme. We all know that golfers on the whole prefer the ball to make a softer click at impact, especially with the putter. At the time Pro V1 and Pro V1x were plenty clicky so they capitalized on that feel/sound preference to pitch the idea that there's some downside to playing a ball that's "too hard for you". Basically a reworking of the "can't compress it" canard. 

 

I've actually played a few holes with a recent Chrome Soft ball and I do did not find it one bit "softer" feeling or sounding than the current Pro V1. Maybe even slightly the opposite. So interestingly (to me at least) I've now seen a couple Callaway marketing efforts that work in the idea of Chrome Soft being "more forgiving on mishits". They've recently seen the "softer is better" thing kind of get some blowback so they're coming around to the Bridgestone "you're not good enough" message.

All true. 

 

At least the Bridgestone RX and the Chrome Soft, though based on deceptive marketing in an attempt to shoulder the 500 lb gorilla of the golf ball market aside, did have urethane covers and decent spin rates.  Unfortunately, a lot of golfers paid premium prices for those balls.  The "you're not good enough" thing might be unique to golf equipment, really; I don't think I've ever heard anything else in sports marketed that way.  The obvious reply from golfers SHOULD be, "You're right; I'm NOT good enough, so give the very, very best there is because I need all the help I can get!" 

 

I'd put balls like the Super Soft and others into yet another category, again based on the idea that somehow a soft sound equals the ball staying on the clubface longer, or "feel" or some other mystical quality that compensates for less distance and less spin.  But at least they were/are cheaper.

 

And the third category, of course, is the two-piece Surlyn ball.  Used to be longer, used to be more durable, used to be cheaper.  They're still cheaper...

[betarhoalphadelta]

2 hours ago, bluedot said:

And the third category, of course, is the two-piece Surlyn ball.  Used to be longer, used to be more durable, used to be cheaper.  They're still cheaper...

 

Not really, compared to Kirkland lol...

[The Pearl]

99% of this debate is really just about price whether people admit it or not.  If Titleist/Bridgestone, etc. lowered their price on their tour balls to match the Kirkland balls, the two-piece distance ball segment would be out of existence in about 3 months. 

[bluedot]

4 hours ago, The Pearl said:

99% of this debate is really just about price whether people admit it or not.  If Titleist/Bridgestone, etc. lowered their price on their tour balls to match the Kirkland balls, the two-piece distance ball segment would be out of existence in about 3 months. 

Bingo!

[rwbloom93]

On 4/16/2021 at 3:32 PM, jmo15 said:

I am currently a bogey golfer. Am I leaving something on the table by not playing better quality golf balls? I currently buy used balls on ebay. I get the top name brand blend (Titleist, Callaway, TM, etc.). Does everyone else just play whatever is cheapest or are the better quality balls worth it?

 

I'm a USGA 9.8 and hit hundreds of balls many times a week.  I switch between Tour balls and recreational balls, from new balls to used balls, refurbished balls to recycled balls.   I hit them all.

I'm impressed with the quality of all the balls on the market today, just excellent....even the refurbished perform very well for me (with a few exceptions).

 

That said, some of the other posters are right when they say it really depends on the game you play (and the course you are playing) as to whether or not a particular ball can help. For example:

 

Is your swing on plane and consistent? Or do you struggle to make good repeatable contact?  Is your short game bump and run or can you hit your aiming point consistently enough to play pitch and check.  Are you a good putter (green reader) or can you not get the ball in the hole? Only you can answer those.

 

In my opinion, if you have good command of your shots and know how to manipulate your ball, then "better quality" will help.  If you are like the other +99% of the golfing world a "better quality" ball probably won't help and could make you worse, depending on areas which give you trouble.

 

New or used two-piece ionomer cover balls (low and mid compression) are very forgiving, it's their best attribute by far.  Minor mishits with those balls still turn out pretty decent for me.  Slightly off center strikes are my biggest problem (along with 85mph s/s) so those balls keep my score together much better than the firmer (Ionomer or Urethane) options.  For the short game, I like to get the ball on the green and running as soon as possible so "better quality" does not help most times.

 

Firmer balls (distance for most) with urethane covers (spin) will make you better if you swing fast, strike it well, and can control your ball. Since you shoot 90 they probably will add nothing, but you need to test in all areas if you really want to know. 

 

Golf courses matter also.  My company golf league played on a public course last year that was so slow we joked about getting out a driver on 30ft putts.  For that course, the 2-piece soft and mid compression balls were perfect.  

 

This year my company picked a public course where the greens are fairly firm and fast so I haven't given the 2-piece Ionomer a chance yet.  I have dozens and dozens of mid compression urethane balls (AVX, RX, RXS, Tour Response, Q-Star, etc) so those have been the choice so far.

 

Note: I have over 500 balls designed for the Tour guys (Prov1 and X, Callaway CS and X, TM TP5 and X, Srixon Z-star, Bridgestone X) and I hit them a lot. They perform very poorly on minor mishits for me so they sit the bench on gameday (practice only). 

 

Bottom line:  Balls that help me play my best have less to do with "better quality" and more to do with performance on less than perfect ball striking.   That may not be you though, who knows?

 

Good luck to you!

 

God Bless.

 

[rwbloom93]

On 4/20/2021 at 11:13 AM, munichop said:

The market speak of dean snell and his counterparts at Titleist is why I believe I have an advantage in my game using surlyn.  The scorecard doesn’t lie.  Additional spin on a golf ball only helps if you know how to use it.  I look at surlyn balls like perimeter weighted irons, they help most on the misses.

 

Agreed...good observation.

[A.Princey]

For the most part, just be consistent in your usage. Don't flop back and forth from surlyn to urethane and from premium to cheap, get used to one type. After that I think low teens to single digits should try to play one ball, exclusively.

[Greenie]

14 hours ago, The Pearl said:

99% of this debate is really just about price whether people admit it or not.  If Titleist/Bridgestone, etc. lowered their price on their tour balls to match the Kirkland balls, the two-piece distance ball segment would be out of existence in about 3 months. 

You comment has merit and you are probably right but only because marketing has people to believe that a better ball is better for their game. If all the premium balls were the same price as the cheaper balls many more people would buy them only because they believe they are better for their game through marketing.

 

I have a 5gal bucket of ProV's in my basement that were free to me that I don't play because they don't fit my game. A friend of mine that lives on a golf course but knows nothing about golf collected and game them to me. All he knows is he was told that ProV's are the best balls and he saved them for me. In this case it has nothing to do with price.

 

I'm playing the Maxfli Softfli's $10 a dozen right now because they fit my game. If all balls were the same price would I still be playing them? I don't know because I would be searching for the best overall performance for my game. I already know that isn't some of the tour balls.

[rwbloom93]

9 hours ago, Greenie said:

You comment has merit and you are probably right but only because marketing has people to believe that a better ball is better for their game. If all the premium balls were the same price as the cheaper balls many more people would buy them only because they believe they are better for their game through marketing.

 

I have a 5gal bucket of ProV's in my basement that were free to me that I don't play because they don't fit my game. A friend of mine that lives on a golf course but knows nothing about golf collected and game them to me. All he knows is he was told that ProV's are the best balls and he saved them for me. In this case it has nothing to do with price.

 

I'm playing the Maxfli Softfli's $10 a dozen right now because they fit my game. If all balls were the same price would I still be playing them? I don't know because I would be searching for the best overall performance for my game. I already know that isn't some of the tour balls.

Yes, The Pearl is right, but not for the reason he thinks, but for the reason you stated (IMHO).

 

We all are so different in our swings, and the clubs we use, that there is no such thing as one type of ball is best for all swings and skill levels. Tour balls were designed for Tour players not for 99.999% of the golfing world.  The idea that a ball designed to be worked and manipulated by the worlds best must also be the best ball for the "hackers" is so silly.  

 

If you are an amateur and a Tour ball (mutlilayer, higher compression, urethane cover) is the best for you, then play it!   Ten, 15, 20 Handicap players thinking a Tour Ball must/will be a better ball for their game will likely be disappointed. The best ball for the clubs I own and the swing I have is the Mid/Low compression balls (Urethane or Ionomer). Tour balls suck for me, but if I improve my game (ball striking) maybe one day they will be the ball I play (doubt it, I'm 51). 

 

Note: I don't make decisions based on marketing or golf articles....just lots of practice and game day performance.

 

Regards

[The Pearl]

On 4/25/2021 at 8:32 AM, rwbloom93 said:

Yes, The Pearl is right, but not for the reason he thinks, but for the reason you stated (IMHO).

 

We all are so different in our swings, and the clubs we use, that there is no such thing as one type of ball is best for all swings and skill levels. Tour balls were designed for Tour players not for 99.999% of the golfing world.  The idea that a ball designed to be worked and manipulated by the worlds best must also be the best ball for the "hackers" is so silly.  

 

If you are an amateur and a Tour ball (mutlilayer, higher compression, urethane cover) is the best for you, then play it!   Ten, 15, 20 Handicap players thinking a Tour Ball must/will be a better ball for their game will likely be disappointed. The best ball for the clubs I own and the swing I have is the Mid/Low compression balls (Urethane or Ionomer). Tour balls suck for me, but if I improve my game (ball striking) maybe one day they will be the ball I play (doubt it, I'm 51). 

 

Note: I don't make decisions based on marketing or golf articles....just lots of practice and game day performance.

 

Regards

When the price of tour balls is hypothetically reduced to the level of non-tour balls, the hypothesis is not "is a tour ball better for my game?". The hypothesis is "does a tour ball hurt my game?"  The decision at an equal price point is easy, there is no downside to playing a tour ball.  That is not me making that claim, that is all of the available data.  

 

1.  The "low compression for slow swing speed players means more distance" we now know was a complete marketing scam. It is ironic that most of those dead set against playing tour balls point to the marketing claims exaggerating the companies claims that tour balls benefit all golfers, yet most making the claim believe that playing lower compression balls give them more distance.  The low compression trend was never to increase distance, it was to make a distance ball feel like a ProV1.

 

2.  High Compression balls, almost always tour balls, go farther regardless of swing speed. All handicap players benefit by increased distance, regardless of outcome of the shot in terms of the rough or the fairway.  Again, the data shows this.

 

3.  The main "fact" assumed true about tour balls is that they spin too much causing higher scores for poor golfers, mainly because they hook or slice more than a non-tour ball. For this to be a fact, 3 things have to be true:     1.) Tour balls have to actually spin more than non-tour balls on off-center hits. 2.) the ball must be the ONLY piece of equipment to cause the "spin". 3.) A statistically significant number of "spinny" tour ball shots must turn out to be penal.     1.) is probably true although greatly exaggerated, 2.) is overwhelmingly false, and 3.) is an absurd conclusion.

 

Most high handicapper poor shots, absent the obvious cause of poor swings, is far more a result of poorly fit clubs than the golf ball. Clubs that are too heavy, too light, too long, an improper shaft, and not enough driver loft, contribute far more to poor shots than a whirling dervish tour ball. Ask any club fitter. The main source of poor driving is that virtually all amateurs don't have enough loft on their driver and play a driver way too long. Most low swing speed players need more spin to get the ball up in the air. Tom Wishon has wrote extensively on this.

 

Not all "spinny tour ball shots" result in penal outcomes.  This is an absurd conclusion, yet closely held by the 2-piece ball crowd. For this to be true, over 1/2 of poor shots would have to end up "worse" using a spinny tour ball than a 2-piece ball.  This is statistically impossible as most of these 50/50 outcomes are a small minority of shots in a round and occur on the margin. Most poor shots by high handicappers are so bad that the ball is irrelevant, i.e. hooks or slices that are off the planet.  I suspect most poor shots are chunks, skulls, shanks, thin hits, etc. whose outcomes has zero bearing on the spin characteristics of the ball. Finally , for every shot with a tour ball that spun too much and ended up just in the rough, there are shots that stopped on the green, there are spinny shots that came up short of greenside bunkers, there are shots that stopped short of a fairway bunker or water hazard, and spinny shots that stayed in bounds. 

 

As far as the short-game goes, it is just absurd to think that a tour ball penalizes a poor player over the course of a series of rounds. There is almost no situation encountered from 100 yds in where any golfer is penalized for too much spin. Of course, the usual retort is "the ball checked up too much" on my little chip shot while they ignore the poor shots that might stop rather than scream by the hole or off the green.

 

For those that "think" a non-tour ball is better for their game, again that is really not the issue, and I would bet, as most any data driven person, this is unprovable over the course of a golfing season. The level of "research" into proving this claim would be extensive and anybody who has seriously studied golf ball data would gladly bet against any statistical improvement using a non-tour ball.  Simply invert and take the challenge.  Play an entire season with a tour ball and make the claim that you shot higher scores.  I don't think anybody would take that bet. 

 

Again, the tour ball, non-tour ball is never about which ball is better, it is that there is no justification for not playing a tour ball other than price. There is simply no measurable downside. On balance, over the course of a season, a tour ball is far more likely to help any golfer than hurt them.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2021 by The Pearl

[bluedot]

1 hour ago, The Pearl said:

When the price of tour balls is hypothetically reduced to the level of non-tour balls, the hypothesis is not "is a tour ball better for my game?". The hypothesis is "does a tour ball hurt my game?"  The decision at an equal price point is easy, there is no downside to playing a tour ball.  That is not me making that claim, that is all of the available data.  

 

1.  The "low compression for slow swing speed players means more distance" we now know was a complete marketing scam. It is ironic that most of those dead set against playing tour balls point to the marketing claims exaggerating the companies claims that tour balls benefit all golfers, yet most making the claim believe that playing lower compression balls give them more distance.  The low compression trend was never to increase distance, it was to make a distance ball feel like a ProV1.

 

2.  High Compression balls, almost always tour balls, go farther regardless of swing speed. All handicap players benefit by increased distance, regardless of outcome of the shot in terms of the rough or the fairway.  Again, the data shows this.

 

3.  The main "fact" assumed true about tour balls is that they spin too much causing higher scores for poor golfers, mainly because they hook or slice more than a non-tour ball. For this to be a fact, 3 things have to be true:     1.) Tour balls have to actually spin more than non-tour balls on off-center hits. 2.) the ball must be the ONLY piece of equipment to cause the "spin". 3.) A statistically significant number of "spinny" tour ball shots must turn out to be penal.     1.) is probably true although greatly exaggerated, 2.) is overwhelmingly false, and 3.) is an absurd conclusion.

 

Most high handicapper poor shots, absent the obvious cause of poor swings, is far more a result of poorly fit clubs than the golf ball. Clubs that are too heavy, too light, too long, an improper shaft, and not enough driver loft, contribute far more to poor shots than a whirling dervish tour ball. Ask any club fitter. The main source of poor driving is that virtually all amateurs don't have enough loft on their driver and play a driver way too long. Most low swing speed players need more spin to get the ball up in the air. Tom Wishon has wrote extensively on this.

 

Not all "spinny tour ball shots" result in penal outcomes.  This is an absurd conclusion, yet closely held by the 2-piece ball crowd. For this to be true, over 1/2 of poor shots would have to end up "worse" using a spinny tour ball than a 2-piece ball.  This is statistically impossible as most of these 50/50 outcomes are a small minority of shots in a round and occur on the margin. Most poor shots by high handicappers are so bad that the ball is irrelevant, i.e. hooks or slices that are off the planet.  I suspect most poor shots are chunks, skulls, shanks, thin hits, etc. whose outcomes has zero bearing on the spin characteristics of the ball. Finally , for every shot with a tour ball that spun too much and ended up just in the rough, there are shots that stopped on the green, there are spinny shots that came up short of greenside bunkers, there are shots that stopped short of a fairway bunker or water hazard, and spinny shots that stayed in bounds. 

 

As far as the short-game goes, it is just absurd to think that a tour ball penalizes a poor player over the course of a series of rounds. There is almost no situation encountered from 100 yds in where any golfer is penalized for too much spin. Of course, the usual retort is "the ball checked up too much" on my little chip shot while they ignore the poor shots that might stop rather than scream by the hole or off the green.

 

For those that "think" a non-tour ball is better for their game, again that is really not the issue, and I would bet, as most any data driven person, this is unprovable over the course of a golfing season. The level of "research" into proving this claim would be extensive and anybody who has seriously studied golf ball data would gladly bet against any statistical improvement using a non-tour ball.  Simply invert and take the challenge.  Play an entire season with a tour ball and make the claim that you shot higher scores.  I don't think anybody would take that bet. 

 

Again, the tour ball, non-tour ball is never about which ball is better, it is that there is no justification for not playing a tour ball other than price. There is simply no measurable downside. On balance, over the course of a season, a tour ball is far more likely to help any golfer than hurt them.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great post.  The "answers", remarkably, will the the same old same old.

 

The idea that a cheap golf ball is more "forgiving" on bad shots is quite remarkable.  The mental gymnastics that it requires to believe that are Olympic gold quality.  I can't think of another argument in all of sport where lesser players claim that they are somehow BETTER OFF with lesser equipment.  Not just as good; BETTER!  It's just amazing...

 

If any of the claims that are made about the virtues of cheap golf balls were true, I think that some of them would have at least been suspected by the results of independent testing.  Even the manufacturers of those balls don't make the claims that are made here; they advertise their golf balls as long, as soft, as durable, and as inexpensive.  But never do they claim magical properties thru which their golf ball performs BETTER when hit worse. 

[rwbloom93]

5 hours ago, The Pearl said:

When the price of tour balls is hypothetically reduced to the level of non-tour balls, the hypothesis is not "is a tour ball better for my game?". The hypothesis is "does a tour ball hurt my game?"  The decision at an equal price point is easy, there is no downside to playing a tour ball.  That is not me making that claim, that is all of the available data.  

 

1.  The "low compression for slow swing speed players means more distance" we now know was a complete marketing scam. It is ironic that most of those dead set against playing tour balls point to the marketing claims exaggerating the companies claims that tour balls benefit all golfers, yet most making the claim believe that playing lower compression balls give them more distance.  The low compression trend was never to increase distance, it was to make a distance ball feel like a ProV1.

 

2.  High Compression balls, almost always tour balls, go farther regardless of swing speed. All handicap players benefit by increased distance, regardless of outcome of the shot in terms of the rough or the fairway.  Again, the data shows this.

 

3.  The main "fact" assumed true about tour balls is that they spin too much causing higher scores for poor golfers, mainly because they hook or slice more than a non-tour ball. For this to be a fact, 3 things have to be true:     1.) Tour balls have to actually spin more than non-tour balls on off-center hits. 2.) the ball must be the ONLY piece of equipment to cause the "spin". 3.) A statistically significant number of "spinny" tour ball shots must turn out to be penal.     1.) is probably true although greatly exaggerated, 2.) is overwhelmingly false, and 3.) is an absurd conclusion.

 

Most high handicapper poor shots, absent the obvious cause of poor swings, is far more a result of poorly fit clubs than the golf ball. Clubs that are too heavy, too light, too long, an improper shaft, and not enough driver loft, contribute far more to poor shots than a whirling dervish tour ball. Ask any club fitter. The main source of poor driving is that virtually all amateurs don't have enough loft on their driver and play a driver way too long. Most low swing speed players need more spin to get the ball up in the air. Tom Wishon has wrote extensively on this.

 

Not all "spinny tour ball shots" result in penal outcomes.  This is an absurd conclusion, yet closely held by the 2-piece ball crowd. For this to be true, over 1/2 of poor shots would have to end up "worse" using a spinny tour ball than a 2-piece ball.  This is statistically impossible as most of these 50/50 outcomes are a small minority of shots in a round and occur on the margin. Most poor shots by high handicappers are so bad that the ball is irrelevant, i.e. hooks or slices that are off the planet.  I suspect most poor shots are chunks, skulls, shanks, thin hits, etc. whose outcomes has zero bearing on the spin characteristics of the ball. Finally , for every shot with a tour ball that spun too much and ended up just in the rough, there are shots that stopped on the green, there are spinny shots that came up short of greenside bunkers, there are shots that stopped short of a fairway bunker or water hazard, and spinny shots that stayed in bounds. 

 

As far as the short-game goes, it is just absurd to think that a tour ball penalizes a poor player over the course of a series of rounds. There is almost no situation encountered from 100 yds in where any golfer is penalized for too much spin. Of course, the usual retort is "the ball checked up too much" on my little chip shot while they ignore the poor shots that might stop rather than scream by the hole or off the green.

 

For those that "think" a non-tour ball is better for their game, again that is really not the issue, and I would bet, as most any data driven person, this is unprovable over the course of a golfing season. The level of "research" into proving this claim would be extensive and anybody who has seriously studied golf ball data would gladly bet against any statistical improvement using a non-tour ball.  Simply invert and take the challenge.  Play an entire season with a tour ball and make the claim that you shot higher scores.  I don't think anybody would take that bet. 

 

Again, the tour ball, non-tour ball is never about which ball is better, it is that there is no justification for not playing a tour ball other than price. There is simply no measurable downside. On balance, over the course of a season, a tour ball is far more likely to help any golfer than hurt them.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I listed the downside of playing a Tour ball (and it is significant  - many others experience the same).  If that doesn't apply to you, that's fine by me... By available data I suppose you mean the two robot tests and other golf articles?  Why would in rational person ignore their own data for a robot? I don't swing like a robot, make repeatable contact like a robot, or use the clubs the robot(s) used.  Plus the two robots had conflicting data.  

 

Responding to your list:

1. I don't care about marketing or robot tests.  My golf decisions are based on my own personal testing in an open field and play on the course.   I'm not dead set against playing Tour balls as I stated in my previous post(s). It is fact that I get increased distance on all irons with lower compression balls based on 2+ years of testing.  It is fact I get better performance from slight mishits based on 2+ years of testing. 

 

2. My data does not show this or I would be playing a higher compression ball.

 

3. My issue with tour balls isn't side spin on the driver (but that could be a problem for others), it is lack of carry off the irons for my toe center, or a grove low, or grove high, mishit.  Lower compression balls are more forgiving for me and carry further.

 

Regarding driver distance and slower swing speeds, I have the most personal data on that subject.  My driver is a Mizuno JPX 900 and I can adjust from 7.5  to 11.5...I maximize my carry distance at 8.5 degree, and a lower compression ball, with a slight draw. Baby fades are considerably shorter counting roll-out.  I've tried the full loft range with Tour balls and their distance doesn't match up for me.

 

I'm not sure why you chose to write the next two paragraphs to me, but whatever...

 

I have 2+ years of data that says non-Tour balls perform better for me.....but.....according to you, I should throw all that away because a robot says my data shouldn't be what it is...LOL

 

To the OP, my advice is do your own personal testing and use that information.  If a Tour ball is best for you, play it. If you find it is not, don't be bullied by the Tour Ball crowd.

 

Regards

 

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by rwbloom93

[rwbloom93]

3 hours ago, bluedot said:

Great post.  The "answers", remarkably, will the the same old same old.

 

The idea that a cheap golf ball is more "forgiving" on bad shots is quite remarkable.  The mental gymnastics that it requires to believe that are Olympic gold quality.  I can't think of another argument in all of sport where lesser players claim that they are somehow BETTER OFF with lesser equipment.  Not just as good; BETTER!  It's just amazing...

 

If any of the claims that are made about the virtues of cheap golf balls were true, I think that some of them would have at least been suspected by the results of independent testing.  Even the manufacturers of those balls don't make the claims that are made here; they advertise their golf balls as long, as soft, as durable, and as inexpensive.  But never do they claim magical properties thru which their golf ball performs BETTER when hit worse. 

Why is it remarkable or mental gymnastics for me record the information and data I have (from practice and playing )and use that information to select balls that perform best for me?  If you play best with a Tour ball, then please play it. 

 

 Regards

 

 

[AngryGilmore]

Yes.  You are.  Before I started playing better balls, I would have shots rolling through the green on wedge shots or chips.  Now that I have discovered this thing called "greenside spin," I'm actually holding greens and am able to play more to the hole instead of hitting it to the fat part of the green and hoping it doesn't roll off.

[bluedot]

15 hours ago, rwbloom93 said:

Why is it remarkable or mental gymnastics for me record the information and data I have (from practice and playing )and use that information to select balls that perform best for me?  If you play best with a Tour ball, then please play it. 

 

 Regards

 

 

 

It's mental gymnastics because you are giving 2 piece Surlyn balls attributes that even the marketing departments don't claim.  And in the golf world, THAT is hard to do!

[The Pearl]

2 hours ago, AngryGilmore said:

Yes.  You are.  Before I started playing better balls, I would have shots rolling through the green on wedge shots or chips.  Now that I have discovered this thing called "greenside spin," I'm actually holding greens and am able to play more to the hole instead of hitting it to the fat part of the green and hoping it doesn't roll off.

 

I have been playing golf for 48 years.  I have never known anybody in my regular playing groups over all these years that when they tried a better golf ball, usually a tour level ball (multi-piece/urethane) ever went back to playing a distance ball for any other reason than price.  

 

I have never played with anybody in my regular groups or was paired with that hit a bad shot and said "my tour ball spun too much."  Not a single person and I have played on every course from the biggest goat tracks to Bandon Dunes.

 

We are seeing it play out in the marketplace.  We just experienced such an event in the Kirkland phenomenon.  A tour level ball at a distance ball price.  People went ballistic and bought these things in droves.  A complete mania.  What is the average handicap of a golf playing COSTCO member?

 

Snell has been wildly successful. Vice and Oncore are flourishing to some extent.  The MG Tour has had a cult following for years.  LostGolfBalls.com has found a niche. 

 

Why?  Because these balls "approximate a ProV1 experience without the ProV1 price."   They also realize that a tour ball may not help their game, but it certainly will never hurt them so if they can get them at a distance ball price point than it is a no brainer. 

 

This is not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

 

 

[rwbloom93]

6 hours ago, bluedot said:

 

It's mental gymnastics because you are giving 2 piece Surlyn balls attributes that even the marketing departments don't claim.  And in the golf world, THAT is hard to do!

Well, they should sign me to a contract then!...but...you haven't really read my posts because my results are better with mid/low compression balls (Ionomer and also urethane).  My go to ball for slow shaggy golf courses is the TourSoft/TruFeel or similar....for firmer faster greens I generally use RXS or similar

 

Not sorry my real life results don't match somebody's marketing strategy.  BTW, real life results (data) are not mental gymnastics. 

 

Regards

 

  

[rwbloom93]

6 hours ago, The Pearl said:

 

I have been playing golf for 48 years.  I have never known anybody in my regular playing groups over all these years that when they tried a better golf ball, usually a tour level ball (multi-piece/urethane) ever went back to playing a distance ball for any other reason than price.  

 

I have never played with anybody in my regular groups or was paired with that hit a bad shot and said "my tour ball spun too much."  Not a single person and I have played on every course from the biggest goat tracks to Bandon Dunes.

 

We are seeing it play out in the marketplace.  We just experienced such an event in the Kirkland phenomenon.  A tour level ball at a distance ball price.  People went ballistic and bought these things in droves.  A complete mania.  What is the average handicap of a golf playing COSTCO member?

 

Snell has been wildly successful. Vice and Oncore are flourishing to some extent.  The MG Tour has had a cult following for years.  LostGolfBalls.com has found a niche. 

 

Why?  Because these balls "approximate a ProV1 experience without the ProV1 price."   They also realize that a tour ball may not help their game, but it certainly will never hurt them so if they can get them at a distance ball price point than it is a no brainer. 

 

This is not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

 

 

Big world, different world.

 

40+ years a golfer for me. The players I routinely play with who swing fast, and have at least some command of their shots, play tour balls.  The higher handicappers I play with who simply focus on making a good swing and not "I need to draw this shot" or "fade that shot" switched from Tour Balls back to non Tour balls due to poorer/no improvement results.  The most common answers are "I just don't hit them well".

 

I practice 5+ times a week hitting a full range of balls including tour balls. I have no issues with Tour balls (or any ball) when I make a nice strike, though the firmer balls are consistently shorter. My practice and play experience is lower compression balls are more forgiving (distance) on slightly off center strikes.  I'm to short on all clubs to lose more distance with firmer balls.

 

Not sure why this causes so much trepidation with the Tour only crowd, I don't claim my results should be everyone else's results. I know the MYYGOLFSPYYY robot says this shouldn't be true but se la vie.

 

Regards  

 

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by rwbloom93

[bluedot]

15 hours ago, The Pearl said:

 

I have been playing golf for 48 years.  I have never known anybody in my regular playing groups over all these years that when they tried a better golf ball, usually a tour level ball (multi-piece/urethane) ever went back to playing a distance ball for any other reason than price.  

 

I have never played with anybody in my regular groups or was paired with that hit a bad shot and said "my tour ball spun too much."  Not a single person and I have played on every course from the biggest goat tracks to Bandon Dunes.

 

We are seeing it play out in the marketplace.  We just experienced such an event in the Kirkland phenomenon.  A tour level ball at a distance ball price.  People went ballistic and bought these things in droves.  A complete mania.  What is the average handicap of a golf playing COSTCO member?

 

Snell has been wildly successful. Vice and Oncore are flourishing to some extent.  The MG Tour has had a cult following for years.  LostGolfBalls.com has found a niche. 

 

Why?  Because these balls "approximate a ProV1 experience without the ProV1 price."   They also realize that a tour ball may not help their game, but it certainly will never hurt them so if they can get them at a distance ball price point than it is a no brainer. 

 

This is not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

 

 

 

If tomorrow morning all golf balls were the same price, by the 4th of July production of two piece Surlyn golf balls would have ceased, and stores would be looking for ways to get them off the shelves.  Shortly after that would be the end of the low compression balls. 

 

As you say, this is not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

 

[North Butte]

25 minutes ago, bluedot said:

 

If tomorrow morning all golf balls were the same price, by the 4th of July production of two piece Surlyn golf balls would have ceased, and stores would be looking for ways to get them off the shelves.  Shortly after that would be the end of the low compression balls. 

 

As you say, this is not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

 

I doubt that. There are hundreds of comments on this forum over the years and I've heard many people I play golf with say they "aren't good enough to use a Tour ball". Either because it "spins too much" or they "can't compress it". Most of those people are saying those things because they 100% totally believe them to be true, not to give themselves an out for saving a few bucks buying cheaper balls.

 

I mean heck, one of the best-selling non-ProV1 balls in the pro shop at my club this past year has been the ERC Soft ($35/dozen) and they also sell a fair bit of the Titleist Tour Speed (at $40/dozen Yikes!). Those guys firmly believe that by spending some extra money they're getting better performance and if they thought a Tour ball would work for them they'd pony up for those.

 

You're way underestimating the power of sustained marketing over a period of many years. True or not, those two memes about Tour balls being unsuited for weaker players are firmly entrenched. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by North Butte

[bluedot]

7 minutes ago, North Butte said:

I doubt that. There are hundreds of comments on this forum over the years and I've heard many people I play golf with say they "aren't good enough to use a Tour ball". Either because it "spins too much" or they "can't compress it". Most of those people are saying those things because they 100% totally believe them to be true, not to give themselves an out for saving a few bucks buying cheaper balls.

 

I mean heck, one of the best-selling non-ProV1 balls in the pro shop at my club this past year has been the ERC Soft ($35/dozen) and they also sell a fair bit of the Titleist Tour Speed (at $40/dozen Yikes!). Those guys firmly believe that by spending some extra money they're getting better performance and if they thought a Tour ball would work for them they'd pony up for those.

 

You're way underestimating the power of sustained marketing over a period of many years. True or not, those two memes about Tour balls being unsuited for weaker players are firmly entrenched. 

 

It still comes down to price.  There are a VERY few guys here who say, "I'm cheap."; most come up with a reason why they play the ball that they do, even if it's something like saying a particular ball is "forgiving".  "I'm cheap." sounds bad, and we don't want to sound bad.

 

As to the marketing, that's about the manufacturers providing the justifications for the consumer, but it still comes down to price.  If the Callaway ERC cost $52/doz, how many would your club be selling? 

 

Golfers are willing to accept the trade-offs of the ERC in return for the $35 price.  And make no mistake about it; the ERC is a GOOD golf ball.  But at $52 a dozen, Callaway wouldn't make another one, and your club couldn't sell the ones they have.

[Tanner25]

I think old habits are hard to break. Have been a high capper for many years and watched my money for many years. Now, that I can buy 2-3 dozen pro v's with no impact to my budget, I still do not see the value compared to buying a Soft Feel or QST, that seem to be fine for me.  

[North Butte]

1 hour ago, Tanner25 said:

I think old habits are hard to break. Have been a high capper for many years and watched my money for many years. Now, that I can buy 2-3 dozen pro v's with no impact to my budget, I still do not see the value compared to buying a Soft Feel or QST, that seem to be fine for me.  

Just because a higher performance ball might offer a small bit of advantage, that doesn't mean it's crazy to play the balls you're used to. Nobody on this forum is getting paid to play golf, most of us have handicaps.

 

Even if (hypothetically) a Chrome Soft or Tour BX could save you a stroke a round, so what? Your handicap would quickly drop by a stroke and you'd be right back where you started except for whatever "bragging rights" it's worth to say you're a 6 instead of a 7 or whatever it is.

 

In the end, balls are like clubs. Play the ones you enjoy the most. 

[jacincm]

It's about:

 

1) Playing the right golf ball for you. You don't have to be "good" to choose a dedicated ball. Most golfers are more consistent than they think. They just are consistently good or consistently bad. The key is to finding your launch tendencies and selecting around that (high vs low spin with driver, high vs low spin with irons, ball flight, etc)

 

2) Not only playing but practicing with that ball. The biggest thing about choosing the golf ball is understanding and knowing how it's going to react under certain situations

 

 

[bluedot]

On 4/27/2021 at 10:23 PM, rwbloom93 said:

Big world, different world.

 

40+ years a golfer for me. The players I routinely play with who swing fast, and have at least some command of their shots, play tour balls.  The higher handicappers I play with who simply focus on making a good swing and not "I need to draw this shot" or "fade that shot" switched from Tour Balls back to non Tour balls due to poorer/no improvement results.  The most common answers are "I just don't hit them well".

 

I practice 5+ times a week hitting a full range of balls including tour balls. I have no issues with Tour balls (or any ball) when I make a nice strike, though the firmer balls are consistently shorter. My practice and play experience is lower compression balls are more forgiving (distance) on slightly off center strikes.  I'm to short on all clubs to lose more distance with firmer balls.

 

Not sure why this causes so much trepidation with the Tour only crowd, I don't claim my results should be everyone else's results. I know the MYYGOLFSPYYY robot says this shouldn't be true but se la vie.

 

Regards  

 

 

 

What you are saying doesn't cause "trepidation" at all.  Just disagreement.

 

You have referred repeatedly to "data" that you've accumulated, and I'd love to see how you have gone about that.  If you shoot 79 on Tuesday with a 2 piece ball and 80 on Wednesday with a 3 piece ball, is that data FOR THE BALL you used?  Was the ball the only variable?  If you hit an off-center shot with a ball, ANY ball, can you duplicate that exact same shot with a different ball to get "data"?

 

I think we both know the answer to this, and it's EXACTLY why the the way golf balls are tested is with robotic swings; otherwise, the variables can't be controlled, and there is zero validity to the testing.  Read the testing methods used by MGS and Today's Golfer; they are pretty rigorous and highly controlled, and both provide mountains of pure data about all sorts of ball flight characteristics.  That data is clear, and what you are claiming runs contrary to the testing; there is simply no way around that.

 

For a long, long time, I carried a 7 wood, and I had convinced myself that I was really good with it and that it was a really useful club for me.  Then I got Arrcos and used it for many rounds over many months; to my surprise, I found that I not only hit my 4 hybrid farther than the 7 wood, but MUCH more consistently.  My best guess is that I had been fooled by the higher trajectory of the 7 wood to think that I was hitting farther, but I wasn't, and it came out of the bag, never to return because of data that Arrcos had accumulated for me.  My subjective impression was not only NOT data, it was dead opposite of what the ACTUAL data showed.  Data is inconvenient that way.

 

You're a staunch defender of two-piece, Surlyn covered, low compression golf balls, and I'm pretty sure that nothing any of us write is going to change that, even a little bit.  And that's more than fine; it's your money, your round of golf, and all that goes with that.  Good on you.

 

But there isn't any REAL data for what you are claiming about those balls, and a nothing but hard data to the contrary.  Not my subjective impression, not marketing claims, no cost-benefit analysis; just performance in rigorous independent testing.  There's no way around that hard data except a subjective conclusion, with the possibility of a bit of a possible problem with a confirmation bias thrown in for good measure.

 

If, on the other hand, you DO have data, real data based on some version of scientific method, then you are wasting your time here; you should be in contact with the marketing departments of the various manufacturers.  They've been making similar claims for quite awhile now, but the testing keeps calling "BS!".  Real data would be a relief, I'm sure.

 

I'll stop now; there's no real point to this anyway.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by bluedot

[North Butte]

On 4/27/2021 at 10:23 PM, rwbloom93 said:

Big world, different world.

 

40+ years a golfer for me. The players I routinely play with who swing fast, and have at least some command of their shots, play tour balls.  The higher handicappers I play with who simply focus on making a good swing and not "I need to draw this shot" or "fade that shot" switched from Tour Balls back to non Tour balls due to poorer/no improvement results.  The most common answers are "I just don't hit them well".

 

I am totally aware of the fact some people perceive their games as best suited to what I consider lower-performance golf balls. I'd never tell someone to play a type of ball (or equipment) that they hate, just because it might be good for them in the long run. 🤮

 

But I do think you're perhaps deliberately failing to miss the point when you equate playing urethane (or "Tour") balls with trying to draw or fade shots at will. I honestly don't play with very many people these days, even really good players, who work the ball both ways like that. 

 

When we say there's more "control" possible with a urethane ball, we're talking about things like simply knowing it's going to end up close to where it lands with irons shots, being able to count on some short-game spin when you really need it and for more advanced players being able to flight the ball lower on occasion if necessary.

 

So just a quibble about your terminology, I know. But a key one to understanding what we're saying about different categories of balls. 

[Tanner25]

19 minutes ago, bluedot said:

 

What you are saying doesn't cause "trepidation" at all.  Just disagreement.

 

You have referred repeatedly to "data" that you've accumulated, and I'd love to see how you have gone about that.  If you shoot 79 on Tuesday with a 2 piece ball and 80 on Wednesday with a 3 piece ball, is that data FOR THE BALL you used?  Was the ball the only variable?  If you hit an off-center shot with a ball, ANY ball, can you duplicate that exact same shot with a different ball to get "data"?

 

I think we both know the answer to this, and it's EXACTLY why the the way golf balls are tested is with robotic swings; otherwise, the variables can't be controlled, and there is zero validity to the testing.  Read the testing methods used by MGS and Today's Golfer; they are pretty rigorous and highly controlled, and both provide mountains of pure data about all sorts of ball flight characteristics.  That data is clear, and what you are claiming runs contrary to the testing; there is simply no way around that.

 

For a long, long time, I carried a 7 wood, and I had convinced myself that I was really good with it and that it was a really useful club for me.  Then I got Arrcos and used it for many rounds over many months; to my surprise, I found that I not only hit my 4 hybrid farther than the 7 wood, but MUCH more consistently.  My best guess is that I had been fooled by the higher trajectory of the 7 wood to think that I was hitting farther, but I wasn't, and it came out of the bag, never to return because of data that Arrcos had accumulated for me.  My subjective impression was not only NOT data, it was dead opposite of what the ACTUAL data showed.  Data is inconvenient that way.

 

You're a staunch defender of two-piece, Surlyn covered, low compression golf balls, and I'm pretty sure that nothing any of us write is going to change that, even a little bit.  And that's more than fine; it's your money, your round of golf, and all that goes with that.  Good on you.

 

But there isn't any REAL data for what you are claiming about those balls, and a nothing but hard data to the contrary.  Not my subjective impression, not marketing claims, no cost-benefit analysis; just performance in rigorous independent testing.  There's no way around that hard data except a subjective conclusion, with the possibility of a bit of a possible problem with a confirmation bias thrown in for good measure.

 

If, on the other hand, you DO have data, real data based on some version of scientific method, then you are wasting your time here; you should be in contact with the marketing departments of the various manufacturers.  They've been making similar claims for quite awhile now, but the testing keeps calling "BS!".  Real data would be a relief, I'm sure.

 

I'll stop now; there's no real point to this anyway.

 

 

 

You maybe right. But, I do like the feel of a softer ball with some greenside spin. So, if I lose a stroke once in a while due to a lack of performance, it's ok, I'd rather hit a softer ball due to it's great feel (Soft Feel, Burner Soft). Now, my son who plays Volvik Vivids and doesn't have a consistent short game, his mishits are magnified. I'd love to see him play a urethane ball. So, it's hard to have one rule as everyone swings, feels and plays differently.