Ballnamic

[Morry]

11 hours ago, Longdriver295 said:

To be honest none of the Balls recommended to me was really as good for me as other balls. I'm playing the Z Star XV right now which is a Very Good Ball for my game, and that ball was never in my Ballnamic list

I agree

 

done it numerous times now and always likes the same balls that honestly don't suit my game lol...

 

 

[Longdriver295]

3 minutes ago, Morry said:

I agree

 

done it numerous times now and always likes the same balls that honestly don't suit my game lol...

 

 

Ive found out myself, the best way to pick a ball is to grab some sleeves and go test them on the course in real playing conditions. Then pick the best one for your game. All that digital stuff is just not gonna be accurate at all. Just like indoor LM is not gonna be as accurate as a LM out on the range. 

[The Pearl]

14 hours ago, buckI said:

Just received an email that some of the 23 releases including Pro V1 and Pro V1x are now in the database.   Interested to see the results.

 

I used the coupon to give it another shot to see if any of the 23 release balls would pop up.  Negative.  I got the same balls as before. Even after radically changing some of the metrics, I was only able to add one, maybe two other balls to the mix.

 

Bridgestone must be an investor in Ballnamic.   

[hwturner17]

Do you need your spin numbers or any hard data to use Ballnamic?

[bcflyguy1]

7 minutes ago, hwturner17 said:

Do you need your spin numbers or any hard data to use Ballnamic?

You may not NEED it, but having it will improve the fidelity of the recommendations you get.

[Fairways_and_Greens]

4 hours ago, Longdriver295 said:

Ive found out myself, the best way to pick a ball is to grab some sleeves and go test them on the course in real playing conditions. Then pick the best one for your game. All that digital stuff is just not gonna be accurate at all. Just like indoor LM is not gonna be as accurate as a LM out on the range. 

Ballnamatic is based on outdoor, full flight data tracked on Trackman R&D mode, which supposedly tracks spin for the whole ball flight. 

[Is Golf Fun or Work]

Both recommended balls are solid choices.....I play RXS, then when really hot in summer, I play CS-X

[DLiver]

FWIW, until recently I have been playing various Bridgestone balls. I started with the BX a few years ago, then went to the RX for a little more distance on my irons (based on the MGS ball test), I did the Ballnamic test, and was recommened the Srixon Z Star XV, the OnCore Elixir, the Snell MTB, the Cut Blue, and the Bridgestone RX. That is quite an interesting and broad group of ball recommendations.

 

I tried the Srixon and it was the hardest feeling ball I have ever played.

[Longdriver295]

5 hours ago, The Pearl said:

 

I used the coupon to give it another shot to see if any of the 23 release balls would pop up.  Negative.  I got the same balls as before. Even after radically changing some of the metrics, I was only able to add one, maybe two other balls to the mix.

 

Bridgestone must be an investor in Ballnamic.   

And Callaway

[The Pearl]

4 minutes ago, Longdriver295 said:

And Callaway

 Good point LD. Every time.

[stevegp]

My comments are a response to several recent posts. I always enjoy testing golf balls. Even though I strongly prefer to try and compare balls on the course, being a hardcore golf ball guy, I simply had to try Ballnamic. 

 

I tried Ballnamic when it first came out, again at the end of last season, and last night to see if including the '23 balls made a difference. I did not specify a "favorite" ball or what I play. My rankings did change slightly from when I last tried it in December. My 1st place (Bridgestone Tour X) and 2nd place (Callaway ChromeSoft X) recommendations stayed the same, but the new Titleist ProV1 was now in 3rd place, replacing the Vice Pro Plus.

 

Having been fitted several times for clubs, I do have a good idea of my "numbers" and ball flight characteristics. I put in accurate data. I do want to experiment a bit by running the Ballnamic tests again, but since my data and numbers are real and honest, I can't stray too far and still get meaningful outcomes.

 

Just a quick note for what it's worth: I never bought into recommending a certain model ball based on swing speed. I'm definitely in the camp that you test from the green back to the tee box. Being 72-years old with a few nagging meniscus and ankle injuries--not an excuse, I'm just saying--but my driver swing speed is now 83-85 mph. So, I'm a short hitter and not a bomber. I'm looking to improve the accuracy of my approach shots and really sharpen my short game in order to better my score.

 

I find the Ballnamic recommendations quite interesting. The Bridgestone Tour X  has been my favorite ball for the last several years, despite my hobby of ongoing testing. The three different times I used Ballnamic, it was their top recommendation for me. It was, however, my "go to" ball before I even tried Ballnamic. I also plan to try both the new ProV1 and the CSX.

 

I'll end by stating that I am certainly a prime example of someone getting the best performance for my game from golf balls that some companies only recommend for high swing speed golfers.

 

 

[Longdriver295]

55 minutes ago, stevegp said:

My comments are a response to several recent posts. I always enjoy testing golf balls. Even though I strongly prefer to try and compare balls on the course, being a hardcore golf ball guy, I simply had to try Ballnamic. 

 

I tried Ballnamic when it first came out, again at the end of last season, and last night to see if including the '23 balls made a difference. I did not specify a "favorite" ball or what I play. My rankings did change slightly from when I last tried it in December. My 1st place (Bridgestone Tour X) and 2nd place (Callaway ChromeSoft X) recommendations stayed the same, but the new Titleist ProV1 was now in 3rd place, replacing the Vice Pro Plus.

 

Having been fitted several times for clubs, I do have a good idea of my "numbers" and ball flight characteristics. I put in accurate data. I do want to experiment a bit by running the Ballnamic tests again, but since my data and numbers are real and honest, I can't stray too far and still get meaningful outcomes.

 

Just a quick note for what it's worth: I never bought into recommending a certain model ball based on swing speed. I'm definitely in the camp that you test from the green back to the tee box. Being 72-years old with a few nagging meniscus and ankle injuries--not an excuse, I'm just saying--but my driver swing speed is now 83-85 mph. So, I'm a short hitter and not a bomber. I'm looking to improve the accuracy of my approach shots and really sharpen my short game in order to better my score.

 

I find the Ballnamic recommendations quite interesting. The Bridgestone Tour X  has been my favorite ball for the last several years, despite my hobby of ongoing testing. The three different times I used Ballnamic, it was their top recommendation for me. It was, however, my "go to" ball before I even tried Ballnamic. I also plan to try both the new ProV1 and the CSX.

 

I'll end by stating that I am certainly a prime example of someone getting the best performance for my game from golf balls that some companies only recommend for high swing speed golfers.

 

 

I agree, my SS is around 95mph and I'm usually around the 250-260yd totals. So I do move it out there pretty decent off the Tee. But with that said the Tee is not where I look to improve so I always choose from the Green back and other should really do that as well. I'm in the same camp just because one has slower SS doesn't mean they won't benefit from a "X" ball. Matter of fact those type balls are a improvement for my game. Been playing the the Z Star XV and love it! But I did order some Pro V1x to see if it's close BUT with maybe little more Greenside spin. If it has that better greenside spin over the XV then likely Pro V1x will be my ball especially with the loyalty program coming back

Edited February 14, 2023 by Longdriver295

[burns9304]

I got a discount on ballnamic in an email, so figured why not.  Put in all my data from a recent fitting and was recommended: 1. Bridgestone BX 2. Titleist ProV1X 3. Callaway Chromesoft X 4. Bridgestone BXS 5. Callaway Chromesoft LS X

 

Funny thing was that I found a Bridgestone BX during a recent round where it was windy and wet and was really impressed with the flight and wind performance.  I actually preferred the feel on woods and irons over my normal BXS which surprised me as well.  

 

Have a dozen of the new ProV1X to try out as well so I'll be able to compare 3 of my top 5 balls on course soon.  I don't see myself trying the Callaway offerings since I hate the big logo they have on them.

[MattM97]

For everyone wondering why the Tour B X and the CSX or CSX-LS get suggested so much it's because those tend to be the straightest and longest balls they have tested. A lot of golfers are looking for longer and straighter. If you were to put in more workability the Tour B X will fall out of contention and something else will come up, if you wanted something super workable the Tour B XS will come up as it's super workable but it's not as long so if workability and length are what you want you may get something else. 

 

If you haven't listen to The Sweet Spot Podcast from January 16th do it, they go over everything with Ballnamic, they explain why those ball come up so often, they talk about compression and how swing speed doesn't related to which ball should be used and more. 

 

Also they use this with their pros and a lot of their pros are fit into Titleist and Srixon balls so saying Bridgestone and Callaway are paying them is dumb since not many play Bridgestone or Callaway on the Ping staff and this was a Tour program brought to the masses. 

[stevegp]

Thanks, Matt. That makes a lot of sense. 

Thanks also for recommending listening to The Sweet Spot Podcast. I appreciate it.

[Shushwap]

Just finished listing to the podcast on this.. very interesting 

Why most golfers don't get fit is beyond me 

[Minarets]

Think I’m about to do this 

[Minarets]

Interesting results for me for sure.  I typically play Maxfli Tour yellow, Taylormade TP5 Pix, or Pro V1 yellow.  None of which were in my top 5 (sadly).  Guess I wanted confirmation I was playing the correct ball.  Now I need to try several others.  That said, yellow is limited in the models recommended.  Oh well. 
 

My results

 

1) Callaway Chrome Soft X LS 96.8%

2) Bridgestone Tour B X.  96%
3) Callaway chrome soft x. 95.8%

4) Bridgestone Tour B XS. 95.8%

my ball

1) Taylormade TP5 84%

[DLiver]

2 hours ago, Minarets said:

Interesting results for me for sure.  I typically play Maxfli Tour yellow, Taylormade TP5 Pix, or Pro V1 yellow.  None of which were in my top 5 (sadly).  Guess I wanted confirmation I was playing the correct ball.  Now I need to try several others.  That said, yellow is limited in the models recommended.  Oh well. 
 

My results

 

1) Callaway Chrome Soft X LS 96.8%

2) Bridgestone Tour B X.  96%
3) Callaway chrome soft x. 95.8%

4) Bridgestone Tour B XS. 95.8%

my ball

1) Taylormade TP5 84%

Interesting. Everyone one of those balls work really well for me, depending on course conditions. I stopped playing the Bridgestones because I had some QC issues with several sleeves, and switched to the CS X LS and it is a phenominal ball for me. The only drawback for me is sometimes wedges spin back a little too much.

[Minarets]

18 minutes ago, DLiver said:

Interesting. Everyone one of those balls work really well for me, depending on course conditions. I stopped playing the Bridgestones because I had some QC issues with several sleeves, and switched to the CS X LS and it is a phenominal ball for me. The only drawback for me is sometimes wedges spin back a little too much.

I’ve always played the non -X version of Pro V and TP5 more for feel reasons. Looks like I need to change that.  Clearly it’s hurting the results.  

[DLiver]

57 minutes ago, Minarets said:

I’ve always played the non -X version of Pro V and TP5 more for feel reasons. Looks like I need to change that.  Clearly it’s hurting the results.  

FWIW, I generally have used the big ball test on MSG to decide on balls. That has been pretty useful, but I never even noticed the CS X LS until recently for some reason.

[KhiloD]

Just did Ballnamic using my parameters and the TP5 as my baseline ball as I need the spin. Driver 285 carry, 7i 178. Lower spin. Wanted high spin in irons, flatter trajectory and high spin on greenside.

 

Ballnamic gave me:

Bridgestone B X

Bridgestone B XS

Callaway Chromesoft X

Srixon Diamond

 

I also tested the 23' Pro V1x as it's always the "best" ball on the market.

 

The TP5 was around 88% while the choices above we 95% +

 

The TP5 ended up blowing away all choices above. higher ball speeds on PW/7i and Driver. Great spin numbers. Hit my yardages exactly where I wanted. Some of the above balls were significantly shorter on the carry. Only the Chromesoft X gave the spin numbers I wanted vs the TP5 but it was shorter on every club.

 

While Ballnamic is a good resource I think ultimately if anyone has access to the Trackman/Foresight etc it's best to take an hour and test it all for yourself as this was pretty eye opening that the Ball that was the "worst" was definitely the best for me.

[Minarets]

The B X and chrome soft X are lower spin than the TP5 and should be longer than TP5, no? 

[KhiloD]

1 hour ago, Minarets said:

The B X and chrome soft X are lower spin than the TP5 and should be longer than TP5, no? 

Chromesoft X for me had more spin than TP5, BX less but neither were longer on any club from my own personal testing. 

 

TP5 was a flatter trajectory as well which I liked since I do hit the ball quite high already with irons. 

[namcneilly]

12 hours ago, KhiloD said:

 

The TP5 ended up blowing away all choices above. higher ball speeds on PW/7i and Driver. Great spin numbers. Hit my yardages exactly where I wanted. Some of the above balls were significantly shorter on the carry. Only the Chromesoft X gave the spin numbers I wanted vs the TP5 but it was shorter on every club.

Were the comparison tests conducted in a limited flight setting or one where you could see the full flight of the ball?

[Invented]

I was recommended some combination of AVX (always 1st), v1x, and v1 in the top 3.  Was not expecting AVX to be the #1 rec. 
 

I usually play Vice Pro Plus or Z Stars and Ballnamic hated both of them for me. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Invented

[KhiloD]

10 hours ago, namcneilly said:

Were the comparison tests conducted in a limited flight setting or one where you could see the full flight of the ball?

they were on a GC Quad/Foresight. I live in Canada and can't do anything outdoors at this time of year unfortunately.

Edited March 15, 2023 by KhiloD
Clarification

[Trippels]

8 minutes ago, KhiloD said:

they were on a GC Quad/Foresight. I live in Canada and can't do anything outdoors at this time of year unfortunately.

The whole point of ballnamic is to recommend balls based on testing outdoors, so Aerodynamic Performance is accounted for. As well as avoiding bias in the calculation algorithms used by launch monitors indoors. 

Not claiming ballnamic is 100% correct on your recommendations, or the TP5 isn't the best for you, but the indoor testing you've done isn't a good argument against the value of the ballnamic recommendations. 

[KhiloD]

20 minutes ago, Trippels said:

The whole point of ballnamic is to recommend balls based on testing outdoors, so Aerodynamic Performance is accounted for. As well as avoiding bias in the calculation algorithms used by launch monitors indoors. 

Not claiming ballnamic is 100% correct on your recommendations, or the TP5 isn't the best for you, but the indoor testing you've done isn't a good argument against the value of the ballnamic recommendations. 

I get what you are saying.

 

I understand my game and how balls perform outside. Played ProV1x last season and while indoor it performed amazingly outside it flew too high and was not a great wind ball.

 

Switched to ChromeSoft X, still higher but better in the wind. 

 

The TP5 is holding spin and descent angle with a flatter trajectory which will equate to better wind ball but still giving the parameters I am looking for in a ball to stop on the small greens of my club.

 

I didn't go in just blindly hitting golf balls without understanding what I am looking for in performance for outdoor scenarios so I could avoid the Pro V1x issues of last season.

[namcneilly]

1 hour ago, KhiloD said:

they were on a GC Quad/Foresight. I live in Canada and can't do anything outdoors at this time of year unfortunately.

I hope your season gets started soon.  It'll probably be busy once golf gets started but if you happen to also do the comparison outdoors, it would be good if you could post whether or not you observed anything outside that differed from the indoor evaluation.  

 

It seems the key selling point of Ballnamic is differentiating between full flight results and what is computed from initial launch conditions.  I'm curious how this translates in reality.