Is there really any truth to softer (lower compression) golf balls being more forgiving?

[Titleist_PT23]

If I played 5x per week I would probably play a urethane ball.  But I play 1-2x a week and rarely go to the course with a real practice green (cut and kept in condition like a green on the course) during the week, so I never practice short game shots.  Trying to pull different things off that you see once ever other (or few rounds) just isn't a high percentage shot for me (I shoot around 80 and get up and down 35%-40% of the time, which is either bad or half decent depending on your perspective).  I play basic pitches with either a set SW or a LW, and hope for clean contact/landing as close to my intended spot as possible.  Sometimes that means the ball runs 30 feet past the hole.  Even judging the spin and roll out with a lower spin ball isn't easy and often a combination of contact/spin has the ball coming up short or rolling past the hole.  But on shots where you have green to work with I think this results in a more consistent circle (for most shots) than trying to hit spinners that either check up too early or fly to the hole and don't grab.  Again, the best shots are not as good as some could be with a urethane but over 100+ shots I think it works better on average given my practice limitations.

 

Note, I am not saying everyone should play a surlyn ball.  Many people will give up shots vs. the tour ball they are playing.  But for average golfers (many people play 1x per week or less), I believe less is more.  

[Haig]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

So Mr. Haig, ain't ya glad ya asked ?

Why yes, yes indeed. 🤔

[nsxguy]

On 6/11/2021 at 9:30 PM, agolf1 said:

I can't imagine this is true to any noticeable amount.  The ball may spin less which keeps it online a little bit better.  Probably, the feel is not as harsh and some of these lower compression balls fly higher so maybe the shot still looks/feels half decent.  But the main factor seems like it should be the strike and energy lost/side spin imparted on the ball.  Don't believe this will change much.  I usually play a Supersoft or SoftFeel so like these golf balls but just don't see this as a benefit.

 

Not sure what you can't imagine is true - a more forgiving ball, yes ?

 

What do we generally consider more forgiving ? More distance on a mishit and less side-to-side dispersion. Not so ?

 

So, according to your own post, if the ball keeps on line more it'll go further than if it curved more, no ?

 

If a ball is launched with less spin it generally goes further.

 

If that same ball is launched (too) low, due to lack of spin, once it hits it'll roll further, no ?

 

And if it doesn't curve as much its dispersion, from where you started it, is straighter as well, no ?

 

So I guess the ball you describe, one that spins less IS more forgiving. Not so ? 

[Titleist_PT23]

4 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Not sure what you can't imagine is true - a more forgiving ball, yes ?

 

What do we generally consider more forgiving ? More distance on a mishit and less side-to-side dispersion. Not so ?

 

So, according to your own post, if the ball keeps on line more it'll go further than if it curved more, no ?

 

If a ball is launched with less spin it generally goes further.

 

If that same ball is launched (too) low, due to lack of spin, once it hits it'll roll further, no ?

 

And if it doesn't curve as much its dispersion, from where you started it, is straighter as well, no ?

 

So I guess the ball you describe, one that spins less IS more forgiving. Not so ? 

Read "noticeable amount" and you have your own answer.  I'd bet the difference across imperfect strikes trumps the difference in the ball construction and any help that is giving you.

[pallmall]

I think even there is a difference of forgiveness between balls, the difference is too small to be noticed. I would choose a more forgiving club, so I can get more distance for a missed shot.

Edited June 15, 2021 by pallmall

[North Butte]

So here's the history of low compression golf balls, as I have observed it over the last 20-25 year.

 

1) Someone noticed that the vast majority of golfers prefer the sound/feel of a lower compression ball. Many golfers very strongly prefer the softer balls for that reason.

 

2) Numerous models come to market touting themselves as the softest ball yet. Unfortunately, in the early years the only such balls companies knew how to make were low spin Surlyn balls with not particularly good performance other than the soft sound/feel. Sold zillions of them anyway.

 

3) Engineers gradually figured out how to soften the cores of higher performance balls although it was still tricky to get the very highest spin out of them and they tended to lose just a tiny bit of ball speed for the very strongest hitters. So even in the Tour ball category they started touting softness and the softer balls were popular.

 

4) Eventually the designs evolved to where the tradeoff of performance to get a softer sound/feel was virtually non-existent except for extremely high clubhead speed players. And even for them it's not a huge drawback. So the popularity of softer balls continued to increase.

 

All of that is perfectly sensible IMHO. Give golfers what they like, figure out a way to let them have what they like with no big tradeoff against other performance attributes. Sell a lot of balls, make money.

 

What does not make sense is why they feel the need to insinuate that lower compression balls are not only (effectively) equal to but actually superior in performance. The message becomes basically this.

 

"You know how much you like the feel of a softer ball? Well the real story is, not only do you like the feel but it's going to fly father, go straighter, be more forgiving on mishits, give you whiter whites and brighter brights and basically anyone not on Tour will be wasting strokes playing a firm ball".

 

Of course they don't actually make any specific, quantitative performance claims. It's all vague implications because in quantitative terms there's no such advantages . But why the made-up benefits? People are going to buy the balls they like the sound/feel of anyway. 

[nsxguy]

11 hours ago, agolf1 said:

Read "noticeable amount" and you have your own answer.  I'd bet the difference across imperfect strikes trumps the difference in the ball construction and any help that is giving you.

 

 

Fair enough for empirical evidence or opinion. An awful lot of golf is "noticeable amount", no ? 🙃

 

But what I'd bet is I'm not going to do the actual research to convert empirical to scientific. 👍

[NoTalentLefty]

Yes by all the manufacturers test. Do a search on google. I’ve used a softer ball for years and occasionally get a wild hair in a place no one should ever go, using the two piece balls such as SuperSoft, TruSoft, TruFeel, etc. recently trying and liking the e12 3 piece. It held up real well with the two piece as far as straightness, forgiveness, and length. BUT do I need to pay a little extra for the 3 piece? I don’t know. Didn’t get wow feedback on short shots enough to justify. A urethane ball has always moved more for me on miss hits but you do get better bite on greens on full shots and chipping. 

[tsecor]

On 6/11/2021 at 6:43 PM, Haig said:

I’ve heard the claims that softer lower compression balls are more forgiving on mis-hits or when you don’t catch the sweet spot but is there really any truth to that?

No...i can hook an AVX just as bad as a left dash......dont believe the hype

[bluedot]

22 hours ago, agolf1 said:

If I play an MB and a ProV1 and the 6-iron spins/flies exactly like a Ping G series and a supersoft 7-iron (assume the (edit) numbered lofts are the same), what's the difference?  All that matters is that my bag gaps correctly.  Also, my 7-iron supersoft may spin more than someone with a lower clubhead speed and many of these people can play the game just fine.  Or even when I play with my MBs and ProV1s if I play a 3/4 shot it spins less.  No problem controlling those.

 

Also, I a flier is when there is less spin than you would expect, hence it goes farther.  I have never seen anything that the variance in spin rates from shot to shot is different across cover types.  Just that surlyn spins less than urethane.  Possible that it happens every now and then if the non-urethane slides up the face (doesn't grab).

 

Again, spin is not helpful on greenside shots if you can't control it.  It's why people (even with a urethane) play a bump and run if there's no need to play a more complicated shot.  Sometimes with a non-urethane you have no hope, and you definitely give up shots in these situations.  But if you can control one basic shot (pitch and let it run) that can be more effective than trying to play all the different shots you see on TV.

 

Also, if MORE SPIN was always better, why wasn't the K3 (Kirkland) the most popular ball?  It spins WAY WAY more than other tour balls (relatively speaking) but yet I've heard people say it spins TOO MUCH.  Care to explain that one?

 

Completely agree that the driver now is a wash (big difference from 20-30 years ago).  Short game there is still a big difference and you need to adjust/accept limitations.  But you need to be able to control the spin or it's of no benefit over the long-run (other than the ego shots where you can feel like a pro). Full swing irons there is just not much of a difference.

First, the Kirkland.  It isn't the most popular ball because not everybody has access to Costco, and because it's clearly shorter off the tee than other premium balls.  I don't think the spin rate of the Kirkland hurts it's popularity a bit; if it was as long as other premium balls, I'd be all over it, but it just isn't.  It is the ball most like the old balata balls, except more durable, but I don't think anybody wants a shorter golf ball.

 

As to the rest, you wrote the same things that so many others do in these discussions:  Lesser players can't "control" spin, and so they are somehow better off with a ball that doesn't spin as much, which is hilariously silly and illogical.  And that's EXACTLY the point; lesser golfers can't generate spin thru their swing, so a ball that helps them out of that predicament with multilayer construction and a urethane cover is a good thing.  This idea that high handicappers using premium balls all of a sudden hit shots with so much spin that their pitches and chips stop too soon isn't real; they can't make those swings!  Hell, most low handicappers can't make those swings! 

 

To be clear, I don't care who plays what ball, and I know some really, really good players who play lower compression, lower spin balls.  But they do it because of cost; none of them make the claim that the balls are magically "better" somehow.  I did it myself when I was younger and poorer, but I was never confused about why I was doing it. 
 

[Titleist_PT23]

1 hour ago, bluedot said:

First, the Kirkland.  It isn't the most popular ball because not everybody has access to Costco, and because it's clearly shorter off the tee than other premium balls.  I don't think the spin rate of the Kirkland hurts it's popularity a bit; if it was as long as other premium balls, I'd be all over it, but it just isn't.  It is the ball most like the old balata balls, except more durable, but I don't think anybody wants a shorter golf ball.

 

As to the rest, you wrote the same things that so many others do in these discussions:  Lesser players can't "control" spin, and so they are somehow better off with a ball that doesn't spin as much, which is hilariously silly and illogical.  And that's EXACTLY the point; lesser golfers can't generate spin thru their swing, so a ball that helps them out of that predicament with multilayer construction and a urethane cover is a good thing.  This idea that high handicappers using premium balls all of a sudden hit shots with so much spin that their pitches and chips stop too soon isn't real; they can't make those swings!  Hell, most low handicappers can't make those swings! 

 

To be clear, I don't care who plays what ball, and I know some really, really good players who play lower compression, lower spin balls.  But they do it because of cost; none of them make the claim that the balls are magically "better" somehow.  I did it myself when I was younger and poorer, but I was never confused about why I was doing it. 
 

I could put a new ProV1 in play on every hole if I wanted to.  Nice dodge on the question on the Kirkland ball.  Maybe I actually put more spin on my SuperSoft (full swing irons) than your ProV1 and the ProV "spins too much" with irons for me?  There's no absolute more spin is better, less is worse.  If so, tour guys would all play the ball that spins the most but they don't (granted, the differences aren't large but they are there).

 

I suggest you read munichops posts on the limitations of surlyn and how it can benefit players.  But most golfers think they are too good to use a non-tour ball.  But again, if a player gets up and down 20%, 30%, 40% of the time they just don't have control over the ball around the green and the major/primary benefit of the urethane ball is lost.  These cool shots with a LW work out every now and then and they think they are Phil/Spieth.  Many times they come up short or don't check (you are hilarious if you say lesser players can never hit these shots.  If they can't there's no reason to play the urethane greenside at all.  They aren't that hard to hit - they are hard to hit consistently well).

 

Please see my other post on if I played 5x per week.  It's not an all should play surlyn claim.  And honestly, the ball ether way at the (non-elite/super lowcap) amateur level isn't changing much.  How inconsistent one's swing is matters the most on any day.  But the idea that a urethane ball does wonders for hacks is comical and in some cases they are worse off because they try low percentage shots with the ball.

[Titleist_PT23]

Also, more spin (on full shots) means the ball is spinning more on whatever axis it is spinning on.  I.e. hacks that mishit the ball have the ball spinning offline.  Per above, I don't think this is a big benefit of lower spin balls but I don't see how more spin helps.  I think people are confusing "more spin" with hitting a PW straight is easier than hitting a 7-iron straight.  The change in the spin-axis here is due to the different lofts, not that more spin (for the same mishit) makes a ball easier to control.

 

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept they may not have the skill for a tour ball.  Very few hacks could hit a 21 degree iron well (both strike consistency and required swing speed to hit more than a 2-3 story line drive trajectory).  The hybrid or fairway has limitations vs. the iron but most accept these in search of a better average shot.  Same can be said about playing basic pitches/chips with a low spin ball around the green. 

 

IN THEORY, the urethane gives you more options and you should always be able to take spin off.  The big difference in theory vs real life is that you have to practice multiple shots and hacks that play once a week don't do this.  Hence, they get no benefit or possibly a negative benefit from the urethane ball.  But again, I'm sure a bunch of 20%-40% up and down guys will tell me they know what they are doing with their wedge and tour ball.  What a joke.

[Titleist_PT23]

11 hours ago, nsxguy said:

Fair enough for empirical evidence or opinion. An awful lot of golf is "noticeable amount", no ? 🙃

 

But what I'd bet is I'm not going to do the actual research to convert empirical to scientific. 👍

I'm not sure what you mean on the first statement.  I think all of these equipment differences are not that large (ball on full swing shots, 460 cc vs 430 cc driver, blades vs GI, long-iron vs. hybrid/fairway).  Most people that experience huge differences is because they have a preconceived notion in their head standing over the ball and believe one thing won't work (and if you think that the results won't be good).  That being said, if I have a shot that is all carry over water over time I would rather have a hybrid than an iron.  But that's not the only shot you face so everything is a tradeoff.

 

For the ball, I would say they are all more or less the same on full swing shots.  I did play urethane balls for about 7 months (came in with an open mindset) but didn't see a noticeable change in short game performance.  There were some instances where I could get up and down with the urethane where you have no chance with a surlyn.  But these were so infrequent and I struggled more trying to manage multiple short game shots on "more basic" situations.  Overall, I tracked that there were ~3 greenside shots per round on average where more spin would be extremely helpful (i.e. no chance with surlyn or you need to risk landing the ball very close to the edge).  If I could practice short game a lot, maybe this could save me 1-1.5 shots?  But I can't practice that much so I can't get the benefit of the ball (beyond a negligible amount) in these situations (they are low conversion % to begin with).

[bluedot]

12 hours ago, agolf1 said:

I could put a new ProV1 in play on every hole if I wanted to.  Nice dodge on the question on the Kirkland ball.  Maybe I actually put more spin on my SuperSoft (full swing irons) than your ProV1 and the ProV "spins too much" with irons for me?  There's no absolute more spin is better, less is worse.  If so, tour guys would all play the ball that spins the most but they don't (granted, the differences aren't large but they are there).

 

I suggest you read munichops posts on the limitations of surlyn and how it can benefit players.  But most golfers think they are too good to use a non-tour ball.  But again, if a player gets up and down 20%, 30%, 40% of the time they just don't have control over the ball around the green and the major/primary benefit of the urethane ball is lost.  These cool shots with a LW work out every now and then and they think they are Phil/Spieth.  Many times they come up short or don't check (you are hilarious if you say lesser players can never hit these shots.  If they can't there's no reason to play the urethane greenside at all.  They aren't that hard to hit - they are hard to hit consistently well).

 

Please see my other post on if I played 5x per week.  It's not an all should play surlyn claim.  And honestly, the ball ether way at the (non-elite/super lowcap) amateur level isn't changing much.  How inconsistent one's swing is matters the most on any day.  But the idea that a urethane ball does wonders for hacks is comical and irn some cases they are worse off because they try low percentage shots with the ball.

I'm not sure that I can do any better answering your question about the Kirkland ball.  It's shorter off the tee, not only in testing data, but on the golf course, at least for me.  I found it to be as much as 15 yards shorter off the driver, and for an old guy like me, trying to play competitively and hang on to every yard I can get, I wouldn't play the Kirkland ball if they were giving it away.  I don't know what else to tell you.

 

I've read pretty much everything Munichop has written, on this thread and numerous others.  While I disagree with a lot of it, I will say that Munichop's resume as a player is impressive.  But that also means that what HE can make a golf ball do has little in common with what most of us can make a golf ball do.  A highly skilled player, which he appears to be, needs LESS help from his equipment, including golf balls; the rest of us, me included, need more.  (And I've already said that I know some very good players that use both low compression balls and lower spin balls.)

 

I have NEVER, EVER said that a urethane ball "does wonders for hacks", okay?  The claims being made here are exactly the opposite of that, that a urethane ball somehow HURTS a hack, and that apparently, as skill level declines, the need for spin declines with it.  It's similar in that way to the arguments that lesser players don't need fitted clubs because their swings aren't good enough.

 

My objection on these threads is this dopey idea that an lesser player playing a high spin ball will suddenly hit a shot that behaves like a shot by a Tour player and stops too soon, or backs off the green, or whatever.  The idea that a lesser player "can't control spin", whatever THAT means, and therefore benefits from a ball with even LESS spin is one of the most illogical ideas I've ever come across.   

[Tanner25]

Fellas lighten up on the stabs while making your points. This isn't a Tiger vs Jack debate. There is no right and wrong here. Everyone has their preference based on cost and what they are experiencing on the course based on experience. I do like the idea of sticking to one ball so you can adopt to it's characteristics.

 

The thread was about a forgiving ball, not spin into the green.

[Titleist_PT23]

2 hours ago, bluedot said:

My objection on these threads is this dopey idea that an lesser player playing a high spin ball will suddenly hit a shot that behaves like a shot by a Tour player and stops too soon, or backs off the green, or whatever.  The idea that a lesser player "can't control spin", whatever THAT means, and therefore benefits from a ball with even LESS spin is one of the most illogical ideas I've ever come across.   

Can't control spin on a short-game shot is they can't control the contact to predictably know how the ball is going to behave (check up or not).  More concretely, I am happy to play a basic pitch (only use 54* SW or whatever LW I have in the bag if there is less green available) and watch the ball roll to the hole.  I think I get more balls within 10-15 feet (have never stepped it off exactly) under this strategy although sometimes that means I can't get a ball within 3 feet even if I hit it perfect.  But, this "basic" strategy with a low spin ball means I make less doubles than trying low percentage shots.  I wouldn't need to take this "dumbed down" strategy if I a) could practice and/or b) was highly skilled.  But I can't and I'm not so "less is more."

 

FWIW, as a kid I played a Titleist Professional or Tour Balata every round.  But that was when I was at a course 5+ days per week and could do everything around the green with a 60 degree wedge.  So I don't think everyone should play with a rock.  But I tried tour balls for 7 months playing 1-2x per week and there was no benefit.  Whatever I gained in the shortsided no green conversions, I gave up trying to manage chipping/pitching with multiple different clubs.

 

Other than the cheapest distance balls, most of these balls are so similar tee to green (full shots) that the difference is negligible.  Thus, I believe the only reason to play a urethane ball is if you can take advantage of the potentially much higher performance around the greens.  But to do this, you need to be able to convert the risky shots enough to compensate for the blow-ups (which increase parabolically as skill goes down).  Or you need to be able to take spin off and pitch with a wedge, 9i, 8i instead of a SW.  Good players can do all of this.  Hacks or people that can't practice can do it A LOT less frequently.

 

Also, I'm not sure why you think more spin is always better on full shots for hacks (the following is repasted from above).  More spin (on full shots) means the ball is spinning more on whatever axis it is spinning on.  I.e. hacks that mishit the ball have the ball spinning offline.  Per above, I don't think this is a big benefit of lower spin balls but I don't see how more spin helps this.  I think people are confusing "more spin" with hitting a PW straight is easier than hitting a 7-iron straight.  The change in the spin-axis here is due to the different lofts, not that more spin (for the same mishit) makes a ball easier to control.  Would love to get your thoughts here.

[North Butte]

For me it’s certainly not about short game only. Even with a Pro V1 my approach shots from 150 yards usually roll out anywhere from 10 to 20 feet. With a Surlyn ball they often roll off the back of the green. That’s no good at all I don’t care if the lower performance ball was free. 

[Titleist_PT23]

12 minutes ago, North Butte said:

For me it’s certainly not about short game only. Even with a Pro V1 my approach shots from 150 yards usually roll out anywhere from 10 to 20 feet. With a Surlyn ball they often roll off the back of the green. That’s no good at all I don’t care if the lower performance ball was free. 

Play the Kirkland 3-piece or the B XS and you be pulling those 150 yard shots back off the front of the green (rolls eyes).  

[chippa13]

15 minutes ago, North Butte said:

For me it’s certainly not about short game only. Even with a Pro V1 my approach shots from 150 yards usually roll out anywhere from 10 to 20 feet. With a Surlyn ball they often roll off the back of the green. That’s no good at all I don’t care if the lower performance ball was free. 

What club are you hitting from 150 where even a tour ball is rolling out that much? 

[North Butte]

2 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

What club are you hitting from 150 where even a tour ball is rolling out that much? 

Usually whatever club has about 30-31 degrees of loft. That's an 8-iron from a modern strong-lofted set or a 6-iron from a traditional lofted set. 

 

Very, very firm ultradwarf Bermuda greens combined with a swing that produces low flight and low spin. Hardly ever repair a ball mark.

[Titleist_PT23]

2 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

What club are you hitting from 150 where even a tour ball is rolling out that much? 

It's hard to say, as course condition varies so much.  I've played where I can hold a ~40 degree iron from 150 within a few feet and I've played where it rolls out 20 feet.  What I don't agree with is that the difference in urethane vs. surlyn on a full iron shot is that much (all else the same).  I attribute it to hitting maybe a club or two more (with the urethane).  Hence, some more roll out but not the difference in next to the hole or in the back bunker.

[North Butte]

11 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

Play the Kirkland 3-piece or the B XS and you be pulling those 150 yard shots back off the front of the green (rolls eyes).  

Not sure about KIRKLAND but with the B XS a PW from 100-odd yards literally can suck backwards several feet on occasion. Just crazy spin (also crazy short distance for me with the longer clubs). 

 

[North Butte]

For me an iron with 40 degrees of loft goes about 120-125 yards. And that's 120-125 with a Pro V1, with a Supersoft, with a Superhot, whatever. 

 

Unless the greens are at their most extreme firmness I seldom have trouble controlling rollout with a 40 degree loft club with 'most any kind of ball (although I think a few of the very hardest distance rocks might roll out a good bit). It's just that I'm almost never hitting 40 degree loft irons for my second shots on Par 4's. Maybe sometimes third shots on Par 5's. 

 

I'm guessing you don't have trouble keeping bunker shots on the greens with a low-spin ball either. That's the one area of the short game where a higher spin ball helps a lot for those of us with little or no clubhead speed. 

[Titleist_PT23]

4 minutes ago, North Butte said:

For me an iron with 40 degrees of loft goes about 120-125 yards. And that's 120-125 with a Pro V1, with a Supersoft, with a Superhot, whatever. 

 

Unless the greens are at their most extreme firmness I seldom have trouble controlling rollout with a 40 degree loft club with 'most any kind of ball (although I think a few of the very hardest distance rocks might roll out a good bit). It's just that I'm almost never hitting 40 degree loft irons for my second shots on Par 4's. Maybe sometimes third shots on Par 5's. 

 

I'm guessing you don't have trouble keeping bunker shots on the greens with a low-spin ball either. That's the one area of the short game where a higher spin ball helps a lot for those of us with little or no clubhead speed. 

Where I play, the greens can be fast but they are usually quite receptive (absent ~2 months were we get little rain).  Hence, maybe why I don't see a big change in iron shots and how they hold with different balls.  

 

I'm not sure on the bunker shots.  I can rarely get on to stop where it lands or even within a couple feet but usually they aren't rolling forever.  I've always found comparisons here hard because of the differences in how much the green is above you, green slope, how much sand in bunker, exactly how you clipped it etc.

 

The big difference for me is partial wedge shots (30-70 yards) if you are going to a small section of the green, over a bunker, etc.

 

Maybe I'll try the B XS for fun sometime...

[North Butte]

17 minutes ago, agolf1 said:

Maybe I'll try the B XS for fun sometime...

I bought some, tried them for 4-5 rounds and moved on.

 

Since then, I've quit saying "There's no such thing as too much spin"😬

 

But if you're not keeping score, it's kind of fun pretending to be Greg Norman spinning a Balata ball every which way on the green.