Ballnamic by PIng

[North Butte]

39 minutes ago, awtryau89 said:

So I want to comment again here. I, like many others, got the reco for the BX and CSX as my top 2 balls. I am a ProV1 player for ever. I finally got a sleve of each and was able to put them through a thorough testing at my home course. It was a really interesting test and I will be sticking with Titleist. The main thing I noticed was feel. The BX just feels off. It feels like a cheaper 2 piece ball. The performance was great. Hitting multiple shots together off tees, into green and chipping with it right next to the ProV1 it may have been marginally longer as Ballnamic said but in the end, it wasn't enough to really say I gained any advantage. The biggest area I would have to adapt to is green side. It just didn't seem as predictable for me. It all comes down to strike but with the BX I had chips and pitches I thought were great roll out and ones I thought I missed check hard. With the ProV1 that never seems to happen. The CSX seemed to be more or less the same overall with everything as the ProV1 except its harder and didn't seem nearly as durable. When I add it all up I came to the conclusion I might have wasted my $40 but at least now I know. I still have 2 of my tests left and I am saving them for when the 23 Titleist get added in. I have heard good things there. Ultimately Ballnamic is a very good tool but just like the Mizuno shaft analyzer, it probably just is better to look at it as something that points you in the right direction and not seen as the definitive answer. It probably helps with the extreme spinny or low spin golfer much more than myself.

FWIW, I don't know anything about current versions but I've played an older generation BX and the immediately previous generation CSX for several dozen rounds (probably closer to 100 rounds with BX) but my long-time favorite ball has been Pro V1x.

 

The older BX was probably the closest ball I've ever found to a Pro V1x substitute for my game. Once I got used to the incredibly loud bang it made off my driver and the prominent click with irons, it seemed pretty much like playing a Pro V1x to me. If pressed for a more detailed answer, I might say it had marginally less spin on things like bunker shots or 40-yard pitches but maybe not even that. Pretty darned similar.

 

Back then I had found a really cheap deal on a batch of previous generation Bridgestone BX which is why I played them for a few months. When it was time to pony up normal retail price, I decided I would just as soon stick with Pro V1x. The transition back to V1x after playing BX took like a couple of round, max.

 

The previous generation (2018 or 2019?) Chrome Soft X after a while I just didn't care for. It lacked the high driver flight that I really love about Pro V1x (and which the older BX seemed to also have). 

 

Of course Ballnamic is based on current generation Bridgestone and Callaway balls with which I have zero experience so who knows if my comments apply at all nowadays. 

[The Pearl]

1 hour ago, awtryau89 said:

So I want to comment again here. I, like many others, got the reco for the BX and CSX as my top 2 balls. I am a ProV1 player for ever. I finally got a sleve of each and was able to put them through a thorough testing at my home course. It was a really interesting test and I will be sticking with Titleist. The main thing I noticed was feel. The BX just feels off. It feels like a cheaper 2 piece ball. The performance was great. Hitting multiple shots together off tees, into green and chipping with it right next to the ProV1 it may have been marginally longer as Ballnamic said but in the end, it wasn't enough to really say I gained any advantage. The biggest area I would have to adapt to is green side. It just didn't seem as predictable for me. It all comes down to strike but with the BX I had chips and pitches I thought were great roll out and ones I thought I missed check hard. With the ProV1 that never seems to happen. The CSX seemed to be more or less the same overall with everything as the ProV1 except its harder and didn't seem nearly as durable. When I add it all up I came to the conclusion I might have wasted my $40 but at least now I know. I still have 2 of my tests left and I am saving them for when the 23 Titleist get added in. I have heard good things there. Ultimately Ballnamic is a very good tool but just like the Mizuno shaft analyzer, it probably just is better to look at it as something that points you in the right direction and not seen as the definitive answer. It probably helps with the extreme spinny or low spin golfer much more than myself.

 

Like you my results always come up with BX as a top choice regardless of the variables I enter.

 

Coincidently I experimented with the BX and the BXS this year.  My conclusions mirror your results.  The BX felt hard and "plasticy".  The BXS felt like very soft.

 

I had a couple of bad outcomes with both balls that just popped out of the blue.  The BXS was terribly inconsistent from 150 yds in relative to distance control. 

 

On about 3 occasions the BX ball literally flew way farther than it should have on a long approach shot.  On two incidents I hit excellent drives by all accounts the ball literally flew 20 yds shorter than normal.  My conclusions is that the Bridgestone QC is suspect as MGS has pointed out. 

 

I also played the Vice Pro Plus a bit this year.  No issues. The ball was very good.

 

As you stated, you never get a mysterious outcome with a Titleist golf ball. The ball does what you expect it to do on every strike.

 

[JJgolfwrx]

My top two were CSXLS 22' and BX 22.' Chromesoft xls had a slightly lower peak height on driver and irons which is what I desired. I tend to have trouble with a higher initial launch / lower spin rate so chromesoft xls was more suited for my initial launch conditions as well. I remember having the opportunity to test the callaway when it was a prototype. First drive of the day I  hit was dead center, looked up and right at the peak is exactly where I thought it was and the rollout was perfect too to maximize my total distance...I was stoked. 

[Fairways_and_Greens]

The good wind balls seem to all have low landing angles compared to the V1X

 

[Fairways_and_Greens]

Another interesting interview, this time with cool clubs. The Ping engineer said that balls lose 50-75% of spin over the ball flight. Another BX recommendation. 
 

Funny that most of Ping’s staff is in Titleist. I really wish Ping would publish variance/shot area data with Ballnamic.
 

 

[JJgolfwrx]

17 minutes ago, Fairways_and_Greens said:

Another interesting interview, this time with cool clubs. The Ping engineer said that balls lose 50-75% of spin over the ball flight. Another BX recommendation. 
 

Funny that most of Ping’s staff is in Titleist. I really wish Ping would publish variance/shot area data with Ballnamic.

 

That's cool that PING allows their staff to play what works for them. In regards to which ball would be the straightest/tighest dispersion Marty states @25:30 "If you select lowest workability on irons, lowest peak height on the driver, and best wind ball you will get the ball that flies the straighest." I could talk about the loss of spin in more detail if you want to also know as spin-decay.

[Fairways_and_Greens]

5 minutes ago, JJgolfwrx said:

 

That's cool that PING allows their staff to play what works for them. In regards to which ball would be the straightest/tighest dispersion Marty states @25:30 "If you select lowest workability on irons, lowest peak height on the driver, and best wind ball you will get the ball that flies the straighest." I could talk about the loss of spin in more detail if you want to also know as spin-decay.

Go ahead and talk about spin decay, I’d like to know your thoughts. I’d imagine it’s related to friction, drag, and flight duration. 
 

Dispersion would be highly correlated to ball quality (variance in core centricity, diameter, weight, and compression). 
 

The fake GolfScientists website seems to think Titleist has amazing quality. GolfBallGuts has shown otherwise. I’d like to see what Ping’s Trackman data says. 
 

[JJgolfwrx]

59 minutes ago, Fairways_and_Greens said:

Go ahead and talk about spin decay, I’d like to know your thoughts. I’d imagine it’s related to friction, drag, and flight duration. 
 

Dispersion would be highly correlated to ball quality (variance in core centricity, diameter, weight, and compression). 
 

The fake GolfScientists website seems to think Titleist has amazing quality. GolfBallGuts has shown otherwise. I’d like to see what Ping’s Trackman data says. 

 

Exactly friction, drag, flight duration are important for a balls flight. Specifically with spin decay there's a little know fact about golf ball moi. Higher moi golf ball reduces the total amount of spin decay over a period of time such as the flight time of the ball (this also assumes we are in a vacuum). In other words, larger solid core golf balls (higher moi) vs ballata (lower moi). Solid core golf balls can have a lower initial spin rate because they resist the loss of spin during flight where as ballata needs a higher intial spin rate because of the lower moi and therefore will lose the spin faster. Assuming flight time, peak height and every other factor are equal. 

 

GolfBallGuts is great, definetely shed light on inconsistencies with some brands. I will say though all the manufacturers strive to have tight tolerances especially for the performance and tour quality golf balls. Of course, there may be a bad-egg now and again.

[luckypolk]

I'm currently hitting the ball high and with a lot of spin. Was looking to bring the flight down and knock some spin off while keeping wedge spin up and greenside spin highest. I chose less workability, best wind performance, medium flier prevention, and soft putter feel. Through numerous tweaks, my results included:

 

1. Titleist AVX (in all 5 results)

2. Bridgestone Tour B X (in all 5 results)

3. Srixon Q-Star Tour (in 4 results)

4. Titleist Pro-V1 (in 3 results)

5. Callaway Chrome Soft (in 3 results)

6. Callaway Chrome Soft X LS (in 2 results)

7. Callaway Chrome Soft X (in 2 results)

8. Bridgestone Tour B RX (in 1 result)

 

I've already been playing around with the AVX. It's definitely a lower flight with great feel. The wind performance is very impressive. I'm enjoying this ball.

 

I tried the Tour B X a couple years ago. Loved the performance, but not the feel. Will definitely give this another go.

 

I was surprised by the Q-Star Tour. I've never played this ball and have honestly never even considered it. At that price point, definitely going to give it a shot.

 

I like the idea behind Ballnamic. I'm all for anything that helps me play this game a bit better!

[hammergolf]

On 12/16/2022 at 6:59 PM, luckypolk said:

I'm currently hitting the ball high and with a lot of spin. Was looking to bring the flight down and knock some spin off while keeping wedge spin up and greenside spin highest. I chose less workability, best wind performance, medium flier prevention, and soft putter feel. Through numerous tweaks, my results included:

 

1. Titleist AVX (in all 5 results)

2. Bridgestone Tour B X (in all 5 results)

3. Srixon Q-Star Tour (in 4 results)

4. Titleist Pro-V1 (in 3 results)

5. Callaway Chrome Soft (in 3 results)

6. Callaway Chrome Soft X LS (in 2 results)

7. Callaway Chrome Soft X (in 2 results)

8. Bridgestone Tour B RX (in 1 result)

 

I've already been playing around with the AVX. It's definitely a lower flight with great feel. The wind performance is very impressive. I'm enjoying this ball.

 

I tried the Tour B X a couple years ago. Loved the performance, but not the feel. Will definitely give this another go.

 

I was surprised by the Q-Star Tour. I've never played this ball and have honestly never even considered it. At that price point, definitely going to give it a shot.

 

I like the idea behind Ballnamic. I'm all for anything that helps me play this game a bit better!

Interesting that highest greenside spin parameter gave you Q Star Tour 4 times. One thing I really like is that of your choices you can compare them individually based on the different parameters. 

[hammergolf]

On 12/11/2022 at 5:00 PM, JJgolfwrx said:

 

Exactly friction, drag, flight duration are important for a balls flight. Specifically with spin decay there's a little know fact about golf ball moi. Higher moi golf ball reduces the total amount of spin decay over a period of time such as the flight time of the ball (this also assumes we are in a vacuum). In other words, larger solid core golf balls (higher moi) vs ballata (lower moi). Solid core golf balls can have a lower initial spin rate because they resist the loss of spin during flight where as ballata needs a higher intial spin rate because of the lower moi and therefore will lose the spin faster. Assuming flight time, peak height and every other factor are equal. 

 

GolfBallGuts is great, definetely shed light on inconsistencies with some brands. I will say though all the manufacturers strive to have tight tolerances especially for the performance and tour quality golf balls. Of course, there may be a bad-egg now and again.

When you say high moi golf ball, you mean more weight towards the perimeter? Been reading a lot about the Triad ball and it’s design.

[Fairways_and_Greens]

14 hours ago, hammergolf said:

When you say high moi golf ball, you mean more weight towards the perimeter? Been reading a lot about the Triad ball and it’s design.

Yes. Callaway claimed the same thing a few years back.
 

Is Wilson marketing high MOI as retaining more spin at landing or going straighter?

[JJgolfwrx]

2 hours ago, Fairways_and_Greens said:

Yes. Callaway claimed the same thing a few years back.
 

Is Wilson marketing high MOI as retaining more spin at landing or going straighter?

 

Yep exactly, lighter solid core golf balls and more weight on the out layers just like the Wilson Triad, which is also a great ball.

[Jmccas]

My results were quirky to say the least.  I am a mid spin, mid-low trajectory player and just average swing speed (95MPH).  I can always use more spin and carry.

 

My top two results in all my tests were the Bridgestone B XS and Vice Pro Plus. 

 

I am not that familiar with the B XS nor the Vice Pro Plus as I primarily play the MTB-X, Maxfli Tour X, and Prov1X.  But what I find to odd is when I did a little more research on the two top contenders I was surprised they were suggested.  The Bridgestone ball is for suggested for swingers 105MPH+ and the Vice Pro Plus is suggested for those who swing 110MPH+. 

 

Which begs the question: is the suggested swing speed recommendation provided by Vice and Bridgestone just BS or is the Ping data just wrong?  I have no idea....

[Trippels]

8 minutes ago, Jmccas said:

My results were quirky to say the least.  I am a mid spin, mid-low trajectory player and just average swing speed (95MPH).  I can always use more spin and carry.

 

My top two results in all my tests were the Bridgestone B XS and Vice Pro Plus. 

 

I am not that familiar with the B XS nor the Vice Pro Plus as I primarily play the MTB-X, Maxfli Tour X, and Prov1X.  But what I find to odd is when I did a little more research on the two top contenders I was surprised they were suggested.  The Bridgestone ball is for suggested for swingers 105MPH+ and the Vice Pro Plus is suggested for those who swing 110MPH+. 

 

Which begs the question: is the suggested swing speed recommendation provided by Vice and Bridgestone just BS or is the Ping data just wrong?  I have no idea....

Swing speed recommendations for balls in isolation is marketing BS

Edited December 20, 2022 by Trippels

[luckypolk]

11 hours ago, Jmccas said:

My results were quirky to say the least.  I am a mid spin, mid-low trajectory player and just average swing speed (95MPH).  I can always use more spin and carry.

 

My top two results in all my tests were the Bridgestone B XS and Vice Pro Plus. 

 

I am not that familiar with the B XS nor the Vice Pro Plus as I primarily play the MTB-X, Maxfli Tour X, and Prov1X.  But what I find to odd is when I did a little more research on the two top contenders I was surprised they were suggested.  The Bridgestone ball is for suggested for swingers 105MPH+ and the Vice Pro Plus is suggested for those who swing 110MPH+. 

 

Which begs the question: is the suggested swing speed recommendation provided by Vice and Bridgestone just BS or is the Ping data just wrong?  I have no idea....

The big time 2021 ball test tended to prove that those with slower swing speeds did in fact benefit from lower compression balls, at least when it came to distance. The Tour B XS ball is softer and spins well. You say you can benefit from spin and carry. I'm pretty sure at least that ball would give you both. I can't speak to the Vice ball though

[The Pearl]

12 hours ago, Jmccas said:

My results were quirky to say the least.  I am a mid spin, mid-low trajectory player and just average swing speed (95MPH).  I can always use more spin and carry.

 

My top two results in all my tests were the Bridgestone B XS and Vice Pro Plus. 

 

I am not that familiar with the B XS nor the Vice Pro Plus as I primarily play the MTB-X, Maxfli Tour X, and Prov1X.  But what I find to odd is when I did a little more research on the two top contenders I was surprised they were suggested.  The Bridgestone ball is for suggested for swingers 105MPH+ and the Vice Pro Plus is suggested for those who swing 110MPH+. 

 

Which begs the question: is the suggested swing speed recommendation provided by Vice and Bridgestone just BS or is the Ping data just wrong?  I have no idea....

 

The low compression ball for slow speed swing players and vice versa has been one of the great marketing frauds in golf for many years. And that is saying something.  I would not hesitate to give either one of those balls a try.  I have played both and my SS is 90 mph on a good day.

 

You are already playing high compression balls.

Edited December 21, 2022 by The Pearl

[JJgolfwrx]

Swing speed and compression I believe was just a simplification by the marketing team of those companies. Much simplier to say low compression for slower swingers and higher compression for faster swingers than to explain aerodynamics of a golf ball which you needs a ~20k USD unit and someone with the expertise to properly diagnose. 

 

Also, keep in mind that ball recommendations can change based on 120mph swing speed vs 105 swing speed vs 90 mph swing speed because the initial ball speed, peak height, flight-time, elevation and/or wind can drastically change the optimal ball for you. 

[ronster]

Revisiting this thread…went to the Ballnamic site as once again Marty was on a couple podcasts talking about it, the amount of test data and wanting it to share with the everyday golfer. 

 

Only to find out it’s US based….UGH .

 

I get it’s the biggest market, but it’s been out for a couple years and you think by now they would of expanded it to say North America? 
 

I did input a zip code close to the same altitude as where I am in Canada but is the payment restricted to US credit cards and is the data still not correct as I am fudging my location?

[MiloMalt]

4 hours ago, ronster said:

Revisiting this thread…went to the Ballnamic site as once again Marty was on a couple podcasts talking about it, the amount of test data and wanting it to share with the everyday golfer. 

 

Only to find out it’s US based….UGH .

 

I get it’s the biggest market, but it’s been out for a couple years and you think by now they would of expanded it to say North America? 
 

I did input a zip code close to the same altitude as where I am in Canada but is the payment restricted to US credit cards and is the data still not correct as I am fudging my location?

You're fine to use any zip code and a non US payment method and it will work fine. I use it from Australia.

[ronster]

21 hours ago, MiloMalt said:

You're fine to use any zip code and a non US payment method and it will work fine. I use it from Australia.

Thanks!