ProV1 and mid handicappers???

[Jeff58]

1 hour ago, Pepperturbo said:

Grooves on wedges are for debris, not spin.  Wedges with no grooves spin the ball similarly to a wedge with grooves.  I have some 30yr old soft 1018 wedges with worn spots on the face.  They spin just as well as the 2016 SM6 Vokey's in my bag.  Reason I replace wedges and balls is surface wear, dings, etc., has nothing to do with spin.

So when the R&A and USGA changed the groove dimension rules they did so for no reason?

 

As demonstrated fairly well in this video, the lack of grooves reduces spin and increases launch angle significantly. The “before” club obviously has no debris or other substance.

 

 

The reason we don’t use grooveless irons and wedges for increased distance is that when such a club is wet, the launch angle increases to the point that you are in danger of hitting yourself.

[Pepperturbo]

49 minutes ago, Jeff58 said:

So when the R&A and USGA changed the groove dimension rules they did so for no reason?

 

As demonstrated fairly well in this video, the lack of grooves reduces spin and increases launch angle significantly. The “before” club obviously has no debris or other substance.

 

 

The reason we don’t use grooveless irons and wedges for increased distance is that when such a club is wet, the launch angle increases to the point that you are in danger of hitting yourself.

R&A & USGA changed groove rules because companies were attempting to make grooves huge, it has very little to do with spin as we do it before or now.

 

But believe what ever makes your whittle boat float.  I don't live nor make decisions based on what's found though search engines on the internet, or YouTube. 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Pepperturbo

[cardigan]

The grooves/spin relationship seem a bit off topic for this thread but anyways, it's been discussed many times before.  Tom Wishon goes into a lot of detail in several posts from the thread below.

 

 

[Titleist_PT23]

On 10/10/2021 at 9:27 PM, Carolina Golfer 2 said:

That’s a bit of a myth. 

The difference in spin off the tee from a prov to a non tour ball is not enough to make it slice into the woods vs staying in the rough.   The greatest spin difference comes on the approach shots.  

The greatest difference in spin comes on partial wedges around the green.  The difference in spin on full swing approach shots is probably less than the difference between hitting 1 more club.  Short game, yes huge difference.  I always laugh when people say urethane stops next to the hole and surlyn is in the back bushes.

 

Regardless, most mid-cap chops can't control the spin on shots consistently anyways.  They hit some shots every now and then with a tour ball that they couldn't hit with a cheaper ball but they screw up just as many "tour shots" with their "tour ball" that the net benefit is probably zero or negative.  But the tour ball stories keeps the delusions and ego going.

[Jeff58]

48 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

R&A & USGA changed groove rules because companies were attempting to make grooves huge, it has very little to do with spin as we do it before or now.

 

But believe what ever makes your whittle boat float.  I don't live nor make decisions based on what's found though search engines on the internet, or YouTube. 

Well, I personally don’t have a “whittle boat”. 

 

What I do have is a Vokey SM7 and a Cleveland CG14.

 

 

Now, looking at their faces, tell me which is which (it should be easy, since one has huge grooves). In use, they’re grossly different. It doesn’t take a Phil to see the difference.

 

 

 

Your statement - “Grooves on wedges are for debris, not spin.  Wedges with no grooves spin the ball similarly to a wedge with grooves.” is incorrect. As with your whittle boat analogy, if you care to believe that in the face of what at least appears to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that’s fine with me. What isn’t fine is the potential that others might actually believe what you’re typing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pepperturbo]

2 minutes ago, Jeff58 said:

Well, I personally don’t have a “whittle boat”. 

 

What I do have is a Vokey SM7 and a Cleveland CG14.

 

 

Now, looking at their faces, tell me which is which (it should be easy, since one has huge grooves). In use, they’re grossly different. It doesn’t take a Phil to see the difference.

 

 

 

Your statement - “Grooves on wedges are for debris, not spin.  Wedges with no grooves spin the ball similarly to a wedge with grooves.” is incorrect. As with your whittle boat analogy, if you care to believe that in the face of what at least appears to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that’s fine with me. What isn’t fine is the potential that others might actually believe what you’re typing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're welcome to your opinion on the subject. 

[Billfitz]

5 hours ago, cardigan said:

The grooves/spin relationship seem a bit off topic for this thread but anyways, it's been discussed many times before.  Tom Wishon goes into a lot of detail in several posts from the thread below.

 

 

Yep, and if you think you know more about golf club design than Tom Wishon, think again. Where the grooves on a club face are concerned their main purpose is the same as the tread in tires.

[Lobby]

To channel rain water?

 

[Billfitz]

Not necessarily rain water. For the last few weeks it's been getting cold enough overnight that my course is soaked with dew every morning. Even in dry conditions you can have dirt, sand, grass and whatever between the club head and the ball. Grooves reduce their effect. It's that action that caused the rules changes on grooves by the USGA/R&A, not ball spin. What are now non-conforming grooves made it too easy playing out of the rough.

[lefthack]

On 9/7/2021 at 9:24 AM, DublAK2 said:

I am a proud hacker who knows he is hardly good enough to play range balls. However I have several friends who shoot into the 80s regularly. They play ProV1s exclusively. In my opinion they aren't good enough to utilize the spin created by ProV1s, but what do I know, I stink.

 

Is it common that guys shooting 85 use tour balls? How good does one need to be to use a premium 3 piece + ball?

 

I shot a 2 under 9 with a $.80 ball. Maybe if I had used a Pro V1 I would have shot 4 under? The world may never know. 🤣

[dalehead]

I can’t imagine why anyone would care enough about this to post about it. If your playing partners like ProV1’s and are OK with the price what’s it to you?

[dalehead]

Apropos to this topic, there is an article here on GolfWRX looking at which golf brands appeal to different personality types. One of the conclusions is golfers buying decisions are “driven by a futuristic vision”. That is they choose equipment based not on their current ability but on their aspirations to be better. Someday they’re going to be good enough to play pro line irons and tour balls. Isn’t that one of the charms of the game?

[Billfitz]

That same logic applies to a seventeen year old driving a BMW M3. Maybe he'll eventually learn how to drive well enough to make it a sensible car for him, but in the meantime a Toyota Corolla would be a far wiser, not to mention safer, alternative for him and everyone else on the roads he travels.

[dalehead]

22 minutes ago, Billfitz said:

That same logic applies to a seventeen year old driving a BMW M3. Maybe he'll eventually learn how to drive well enough to make it a sensible car for him, but in the meantime a Toyota Corolla would be a far wiser, not to mention safer, alternative for him and everyone else on the roads he travels.

The same could be said about the 40 year old who drives a BMW M3 when most of his driving is his commute to and from work. That Toyota Coralla would do the job just fine. And before the BMW fans get their knickers in a twist I have nothing against anyone driving a BMW, a Mercedes or any other car they choose. If it wasn’t for aspirational buying many brands like Rolex, Gucci, Armani, etc. would be in trouble. How many guys buy a Rolex on credit? They go into debt to buy an expensive watch when a Seiko or Casio would tell them the time. If only single digit handicappers bought Pro V1’s Titleist would loose a lot of business.

[Billfitz]

I drive a BMW, but it's not an M. It's a practical 328GT. I'd never own a car incapable of carrying four guys and their clubs. 😉

[chippa13]

If you're going with a 3 series then might as well get a bells and whistles Mazda