Wilson Staff 50 Balls

[okesa]

[size=5]LOL,you should have that music that darts player Phil Taylor has as a theme;[/size]

[size=5]"I've Got The Power!"......[/size]

[size=5]Btw Blade,have you seen the bags on ebay?Tan cowhide leather and canvas retro pencil bags?[/size]

[Shallowface]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1386343255' post='8258043']
[quote name='dukeman' timestamp='1386188347' post='8248507']
I think there is a general population that is starting to realize that the "players" balls today feel just about as hard as the surlyn 2 piece balls of the past. Here's a really interesting read from Golfwrx contributor Monte Scheinblum on the topic.

[url="https://montescheinblum.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/the-modern-golf-ball-sucks/"]https://montescheinb...olf-ball-sucks/[/url]
[/quote]

I wouldn't put much stock in that. There's a lot of misinfo in that piece...
[/quote]

Care to elaborate?

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='Shallowface' timestamp='1386369921' post='8260259']
[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1386343255' post='8258043']
[quote name='dukeman' timestamp='1386188347' post='8248507']
I think there is a general population that is starting to realize that the "players" balls today feel just about as hard as the surlyn 2 piece balls of the past. Here's a really interesting read from Golfwrx contributor Monte Scheinblum on the topic.

[url="https://montescheinblum.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/the-modern-golf-ball-sucks/"]https://montescheinb...olf-ball-sucks/[/url]
[/quote]

I wouldn't put much stock in that. There's a lot of misinfo in that piece...
[/quote]

Care to elaborate?
[/quote]

The entire piece is anecdotal in nature, trying to make conclusions without truly identifying causes.

My favorite: trying to spin a ball more to "cut through the wind." Admittedly, he says that was advice given him by another, but simple aerodynamics would tell you adding spin going INTO the wind is not a good thing. Unless you don't hit it with enough spin to begin with.

Another good one is complaining about how the new balls don't spin enough, but saying they're really good downwind. If you're hitting downwind, you need more spin to keep it in the air; if it's spinning less, it wouldn't be going farther?

Hitting an old, yellowed, wound ball significantly farther than the Pro V1. What's being done differently with each that makes it so? In a normal environment, an aged wound ball (with considerable distance loss due to that age) isn't going to go farther than a solid ball.

From my perspective, odd conclusions to the observations.

[MonteScheinblum]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1386373294' post='8260463']
[quote name='Shallowface' timestamp='1386369921' post='8260259']
[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1386343255' post='8258043']
[quote name='dukeman' timestamp='1386188347' post='8248507']
I think there is a general population that is starting to realize that the "players" balls today feel just about as hard as the surlyn 2 piece balls of the past. Here's a really interesting read from Golfwrx contributor Monte Scheinblum on the topic.

[url="https://montescheinblum.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/the-modern-golf-ball-sucks/"]https://montescheinb...olf-ball-sucks/[/url]
[/quote]

I wouldn't put much stock in that. There's a lot of misinfo in that piece...
[/quote]

Care to elaborate?
[/quote]

The entire piece is anecdotal in nature, trying to make conclusions without truly identifying causes.

My favorite: trying to spin a ball more to "cut through the wind." Admittedly, he says that was advice given him by another, but simple aerodynamics would tell you adding spin going INTO the wind is not a good thing. Unless you don't hit it with enough spin to begin with.

Another good one is complaining about how the new balls don't spin enough, but saying they're really good downwind. If you're hitting downwind, you need more spin to keep it in the air; if it's spinning less, it wouldn't be going farther?

Hitting an old, yellowed, wound ball significantly farther than the Pro V1. What's being done differently with each that makes it so? In a normal environment, an aged wound ball (with considerable distance loss due to that age) isn't going to go farther than a solid ball.

From my perspective, odd conclusions to the observations.
[/quote]

For a fellow fan of Big Bang Theory, I would think you wouldn't be so dismissive of anecdotal information. I did Trackman tests, spoke to Tour players and tested with a few of them. The evidence is small sampled and anecdotal, but to dismiss it is short sighted.

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1386380875' post='8261059']
For a fellow fan of Big Bang Theory, I would think you wouldn't be so dismissive of anecdotal information. I did Trackman tests, spoke to Tour players and tested with a few of them. The evidence is small sampled and anecdotal, but to dismiss it is short sighted.
[/quote]

How cool, the author himself.

BTW, nice haiku in your sig.

I would agree with you that it would be short sighted to dismiss your findings out of hand, but that's not going on here. Though I do think the Pro V1 sucks, but that's fodder for another thread. LOL

As I mentioned earlier, I find some of the statements you made to be contrary to certain aspects of flight, such as they've been taught. All else equal, lower spin balls won't do as well downwind. Adding spin to a shot into the wind is only going to hurt (unless you don't have enough). That sort of thing.

There seem to be some variables not touched on. Skipped for brevity's sake, perhaps?

I'm assuming you tested the spin rates of the Lady IQ compared to the premium balls in question, and found them to be lower (which is what I'd expect). One thing I've seen is balls designed to be lower spin tend to be dimple patterns such that they fly higher (offsetting the reduced lift from lower spin). Which could play to advantage going downwind.

And I'm dropping that line of thought for a moment, because I got a memory trigger...

...as I'm typing this, I'm reminded of a guy I used to play golf with fairly often. When I met him, he was low single digit, and playing two piece golfballs. Distance balls. I didn't get the "why" of that, figuring the last thing he'd need was more distance; back then, he had LD caliber swing speed. He told me he had problems with playing with balls like the Pro V1, spoke of things that would happen to them when he'd hit them, that I found a bit odd. Thought he was yanking my chain a bit, but he showed me a couple (the [i]why[/i] of that will be below).

Such some of his experiences sounded a lot like what you desribed in your post, balls falling out of the sky, strange things. And, this was the kicker for me, and why he made a point of showing me a ball or two, he actually put flat spots on some of the Pro V1s he'd played. I'd have never believed it if I hadn't seen the balls with my own eyes.

So he played distance balls.

I suppose he could have been yanking my chain, and kept a couple reject balls he'd found over time, but seems like a lot of work for a cheap joke.

A couple years later, he'd taken something off the gas, so to speak, and was back to playing "regular" premium balls.

I'd almost forgotten about all that until I was typing this post.

Point of all this drivel, I wonder if you're experiencing some of the same...

Sorry for this being all over the place.

[MonteScheinblum]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1386390799' post='8261827']
[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1386380875' post='8261059']
For a fellow fan of Big Bang Theory, I would think you wouldn't be so dismissive of anecdotal information. I did Trackman tests, spoke to Tour players and tested with a few of them. The evidence is small sampled and anecdotal, but to dismiss it is short sighted.
[/quote]

How cool, the author himself.

BTW, nice haiku in your sig.

I would agree with you that it would be short sighted to dismiss your findings out of hand, but that's not going on here. Though I do think the Pro V1 sucks, but that's fodder for another thread. LOL

As I mentioned earlier, I find some of the statements you made to be contrary to certain aspects of flight, such as they've been taught. All else equal, lower spin balls won't do as well downwind. Adding spin to a shot into the wind is only going to hurt (unless you don't have enough). That sort of thing.

There seem to be some variables not touched on. Skipped for brevity's sake, perhaps?

I'm assuming you tested the spin rates of the Lady IQ compared to the premium balls in question, and found them to be lower (which is what I'd expect). One thing I've seen is balls designed to be lower spin tend to be dimple patterns such that they fly higher (offsetting the reduced lift from lower spin). Which could play to advantage going downwind.

And I'm dropping that line of thought for a moment, because I got a memory trigger...

...as I'm typing this, I'm reminded of a guy I used to play golf with fairly often. When I met him, he was low single digit, and playing two piece golfballs. Distance balls. I didn't get the "why" of that, figuring the last thing he'd need was more distance; back then, he had LD caliber swing speed. He told me he had problems with playing with balls like the Pro V1, spoke of things that would happen to them when he'd hit them, that I found a bit odd. Thought he was yanking my chain a bit, but he showed me a couple (the [i]why[/i] of that will be below).

Such some of his experiences sounded a lot like what you desribed in your post, balls falling out of the sky, strange things. And, this was the kicker for me, and why he made a point of showing me a ball or two, he actually put flat spots on some of the Pro V1s he'd played. I'd have never believed it if I hadn't seen the balls with my own eyes.

So he played distance balls.

I suppose he could have been yanking my chain, and kept a couple reject balls he'd found over time, but seems like a lot of work for a cheap joke.

A couple years later, he'd taken something off the gas, so to speak, and was back to playing "regular" premium balls.

I'd almost forgotten about all that until I was typing this post.

Point of all this drivel, I wonder if you're experiencing some of the same...

Sorry for this being all over the place.
[/quote]


It comes down to this. Adding spin into the wind doesn't automatically mean shorter...and less spin doesn't automatically mean longer. I have seen it with my own eyes on a trackman that a ball with higher spin actually went farther into the wind. If you flight a ball lower and it doesn't have enough spin, it will fly shorter. These new balls are made to be crushed and an old yellow wound ball had a more optimal flight at a lower trajectory than the new balls.

It's not a linear curve, it's a parabola. There is also something to dimple pattern and performance into the wind. Deeper dimpled balls seem to carry farther on a lower flighted shot.

I do not have near enough scientific evidence to back up my claim and I am clear about that. My premise is based on what I have experienced myself and what 5 different PGA Tour winners have told me.

To sum up, I am a soldier in the field telling a gun maker, "I don't care what this does in testing...in the field, it doesn't shoot straight."

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1386398141' post='8262157']
[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1386390799' post='8261827']
[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1386380875' post='8261059']
For a fellow fan of Big Bang Theory, I would think you wouldn't be so dismissive of anecdotal information. I did Trackman tests, spoke to Tour players and tested with a few of them. The evidence is small sampled and anecdotal, but to dismiss it is short sighted.
[/quote]

How cool, the author himself.

BTW, nice haiku in your sig.

I would agree with you that it would be short sighted to dismiss your findings out of hand, but that's not going on here. Though I do think the Pro V1 sucks, but that's fodder for another thread. LOL

As I mentioned earlier, I find some of the statements you made to be contrary to certain aspects of flight, such as they've been taught. All else equal, lower spin balls won't do as well downwind. Adding spin to a shot into the wind is only going to hurt (unless you don't have enough). That sort of thing.

There seem to be some variables not touched on. Skipped for brevity's sake, perhaps?

I'm assuming you tested the spin rates of the Lady IQ compared to the premium balls in question, and found them to be lower (which is what I'd expect). One thing I've seen is balls designed to be lower spin tend to be dimple patterns such that they fly higher (offsetting the reduced lift from lower spin). Which could play to advantage going downwind.

And I'm dropping that line of thought for a moment, because I got a memory trigger...

...as I'm typing this, I'm reminded of a guy I used to play golf with fairly often. When I met him, he was low single digit, and playing two piece golfballs. Distance balls. I didn't get the "why" of that, figuring the last thing he'd need was more distance; back then, he had LD caliber swing speed. He told me he had problems with playing with balls like the Pro V1, spoke of things that would happen to them when he'd hit them, that I found a bit odd. Thought he was yanking my chain a bit, but he showed me a couple (the [i]why[/i] of that will be below).

Such some of his experiences sounded a lot like what you desribed in your post, balls falling out of the sky, strange things. And, this was the kicker for me, and why he made a point of showing me a ball or two, he actually put flat spots on some of the Pro V1s he'd played. I'd have never believed it if I hadn't seen the balls with my own eyes.

So he played distance balls.

I suppose he could have been yanking my chain, and kept a couple reject balls he'd found over time, but seems like a lot of work for a cheap joke.

A couple years later, he'd taken something off the gas, so to speak, and was back to playing "regular" premium balls.

I'd almost forgotten about all that until I was typing this post.

Point of all this drivel, I wonder if you're experiencing some of the same...

Sorry for this being all over the place.
[/quote]


It comes down to this. Adding spin into the wind doesn't automatically mean shorter...and less spin doesn't automatically mean longer. I have seen it with my own eyes on a trackman that a ball with higher spin actually went farther into the wind. If you flight a ball lower and it doesn't have enough spin, it will fly shorter. These new balls are made to be crushed and an old yellow wound ball had a more optimal flight at a lower trajectory than the new balls.

It's not a linear curve, it's a parabola. There is also something to dimple pattern and performance into the wind. Deeper dimpled balls seem to carry farther on a lower flighted shot.

I do not have near enough scientific evidence to back up my claim and I am clear about that. My premise is based on what I have experienced myself and what 5 different PGA Tour winners have told me.

To sum up, I am a soldier in the field telling a gun maker, "I don't care what this does in testing...in the field, it doesn't shoot straight."
[/quote]

My own experiences are a bit different. Here are a few random observations, I'll continue my "all over the place" theme from earlier. LOL

My normal trajectory is on the higher side with a fair amount of spin. Well, that's with Mizuno MS-11s, spin is lower with Ping Eye2+. Adding spin into the wind is not a positive for this boy. (I've seen the launch conditions data, fwiw)

I played Maxfli Elite balls for a time, when they were new. I found I hit the short irons farther than even two piece balls, though I was never sure why. Maybe in part because they flew lower for me? (anedotal alert, lol) I assumed aerodynamics, but I can't say that for certain. Have some HT100s lying around, picked up off ebay a few years ago, maybe should give them a more thorough go next season. Wind performance doesn't stick out in my mind, other than "crosswind stable."

I've also done the old beat up Titleist wound ball thing in the wind. A dozen years ago, I found one in a hazard, a Tour Balata. Spin spin spin and spin. Played it on a couple holes. Into the wind, it didn't do anything special, as short as I expected, being old and in the elements for who knows how long. Downwind, it was ridiculous; I hit an 8 iron from 170 with it and airmailed the green (hit a bit less long with the regular ball and a 7 iron). 8 iron was nowhere near my usual club for a 185 yard shot at the time, even in that sort of wind. It went farther downwind, but shorter into the wind.

[quote]Adding spin into the wind doesn't automatically mean shorter...and less spin doesn't automatically mean longer. I have seen it with my own eyes on a trackman that a ball with higher spin actually went farther into the wind. If you flight a ball lower and it doesn't have enough spin, it will fly shorter.[/quote]
I did say that above, that adding spin would be bad unless you don't have enough spin to begin with.
I'm guessing you're hitting it lower trajectory than optimal for the spin rate and ball speed on that given shot, which is why the added spin helps. Might be same with your deeper dimpled balls carrying farther comment; they're carrying farther because you've hit a shot which needs that added trajectory. (obviously, I'm assuming they aid trajectory, lol)

I guess the ultimate answer is, it's not working for you and what you're doing. It might not be the same for others.

[jtbrown248]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1386425752' post='8262691']
[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1386398141' post='8262157']
[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1386390799' post='8261827']
[quote name='MonteScheinblum' timestamp='1386380875' post='8261059']
For a fellow fan of Big Bang Theory, I would think you wouldn't be so dismissive of anecdotal information. I did Trackman tests, spoke to Tour players and tested with a few of them. The evidence is small sampled and anecdotal, but to dismiss it is short sighted.
[/quote]

How cool, the author himself.

BTW, nice haiku in your sig.

I would agree with you that it would be short sighted to dismiss your findings out of hand, but that's not going on here. Though I do think the Pro V1 sucks, but that's fodder for another thread. LOL

As I mentioned earlier, I find some of the statements you made to be contrary to certain aspects of flight, such as they've been taught. All else equal, lower spin balls won't do as well downwind. Adding spin to a shot into the wind is only going to hurt (unless you don't have enough). That sort of thing.

There seem to be some variables not touched on. Skipped for brevity's sake, perhaps?

I'm assuming you tested the spin rates of the Lady IQ compared to the premium balls in question, and found them to be lower (which is what I'd expect). One thing I've seen is balls designed to be lower spin tend to be dimple patterns such that they fly higher (offsetting the reduced lift from lower spin). Which could play to advantage going downwind.

And I'm dropping that line of thought for a moment, because I got a memory trigger...

...as I'm typing this, I'm reminded of a guy I used to play golf with fairly often. When I met him, he was low single digit, and playing two piece golfballs. Distance balls. I didn't get the "why" of that, figuring the last thing he'd need was more distance; back then, he had LD caliber swing speed. He told me he had problems with playing with balls like the Pro V1, spoke of things that would happen to them when he'd hit them, that I found a bit odd. Thought he was yanking my chain a bit, but he showed me a couple (the [i]why[/i] of that will be below).

Such some of his experiences sounded a lot like what you desribed in your post, balls falling out of the sky, strange things. And, this was the kicker for me, and why he made a point of showing me a ball or two, he actually put flat spots on some of the Pro V1s he'd played. I'd have never believed it if I hadn't seen the balls with my own eyes.

So he played distance balls.

I suppose he could have been yanking my chain, and kept a couple reject balls he'd found over time, but seems like a lot of work for a cheap joke.

A couple years later, he'd taken something off the gas, so to speak, and was back to playing "regular" premium balls.

I'd almost forgotten about all that until I was typing this post.

Point of all this drivel, I wonder if you're experiencing some of the same...

Sorry for this being all over the place.
[/quote]


It comes down to this. Adding spin into the wind doesn't automatically mean shorter...and less spin doesn't automatically mean longer. I have seen it with my own eyes on a trackman that a ball with higher spin actually went farther into the wind. If you flight a ball lower and it doesn't have enough spin, it will fly shorter. These new balls are made to be crushed and an old yellow wound ball had a more optimal flight at a lower trajectory than the new balls.

It's not a linear curve, it's a parabola. There is also something to dimple pattern and performance into the wind. Deeper dimpled balls seem to carry farther on a lower flighted shot.

I do not have near enough scientific evidence to back up my claim and I am clear about that. My premise is based on what I have experienced myself and what 5 different PGA Tour winners have told me.

To sum up, I am a soldier in the field telling a gun maker, "I don't care what this does in testing...in the field, it doesn't shoot straight."
[/quote]

My own experiences are a bit different. Here are a few random observations, I'll continue my "all over the place" theme from earlier. LOL

My normal trajectory is on the higher side with a fair amount of spin. Well, that's with Mizuno MS-11s, spin is lower with Ping Eye2+. Adding spin into the wind is not a positive for this boy. (I've seen the launch conditions data, fwiw)

I played Maxfli Elite balls for a time, when they were new. I found I hit the short irons farther than even two piece balls, though I was never sure why. Maybe in part because they flew lower for me? (anedotal alert, lol) I assumed aerodynamics, but I can't say that for certain. Have some HT100s lying around, picked up off ebay a few years ago, maybe should give them a more thorough go next season. Wind performance doesn't stick out in my mind, other than "crosswind stable."

I've also done the old beat up Titleist wound ball thing in the wind. A dozen years ago, I found one in a hazard, a Tour Balata. Spin spin spin and spin. Played it on a couple holes. Into the wind, it didn't do anything special, as short as I expected, being old and in the elements for who knows how long. Downwind, it was ridiculous; I hit an 8 iron from 170 with it and airmailed the green (hit a bit less long with the regular ball and a 7 iron). 8 iron was nowhere near my usual club for a 185 yard shot at the time, even in that sort of wind. It went farther downwind, but shorter into the wind.

[quote]Adding spin into the wind doesn't automatically mean shorter...and less spin doesn't automatically mean longer. I have seen it with my own eyes on a trackman that a ball with higher spin actually went farther into the wind. If you flight a ball lower and it doesn't have enough spin, it will fly shorter.[/quote]
I did say that above, that adding spin would be bad unless you don't have enough spin to begin with.
I'm guessing you're hitting it lower trajectory than optimal for the spin rate and ball speed on that given shot, which is why the added spin helps. Might be same with your deeper dimpled balls carrying farther comment; they're carrying farther because you've hit a shot which needs that added trajectory. (obviously, I'm assuming they aid trajectory, lol)

I guess the ultimate answer is, it's not working for you and what you're doing. It might not be the same for others.
[/quote]Hello, hello

Not sure about others on the forum but talking about adding or subtracting spin like a dial setting on hose end sprayer is a bit of a reach for 95% of the players out there.

For the most part, I believe hitting a draw on command and maybe little backspin on a wedge into the green is the most we look to do. Not meaning to bust some chops but I believe we have slid into golf techno speak rather than just plain ole "Hell I like this ball cause it seems to go further and I like the way it putts"

Brevity is anecdotal spice if used in a common vernacular that everyone comprehends You may quote me on that one

[ScooterMcTavish]

[quote name='jtbrown248' timestamp='1386443912' post='8263813']

Not sure about others on the forum but talking about adding or subtracting spin like a dial setting on hose end sprayer is a bit of a reach for 95% of the players out there.

For the most part, I believe hitting a draw on command and maybe little backspin on a wedge into the green is the most we look to do. Not meaning to bust some chops but I believe we have slid into golf techno speak rather than just plain ole "Hell I like this ball cause it seems to go further and I like the way it putts"
[/quote]

Good post, though I have enjoyed NRJyzr's back and forth with Monte. I had read Monte's piece a time ago, and although I can see why a Lady IQ could be a better ball for some than a ProV, I think some of the conclusions drawn on the vintage balls are incorrect. As they taught us in statistics and research methods, it can be dangerous to draw conclusions from casual observations.

And although I hate to use tour stats to back up an argument, if vintage balls (or Lady IQs) are the best ball out there, then we would see these balls being played by virtually every pro without a ball sponsorship gig.

But if you like the feel of a ball, and you trust the draw/backspin action of a ball, then JT is correct.

[okesa]

[size=5]I'm with JTB,golf has tactile and sensory departments that can't be turned into statistics,if 'casual observation' means finding your optimum golf ball through trial and error (i.e. trying a few different makes and types) then that is the best way and never mind the 'numbers'.[/size]

[MonteScheinblum]

[quote name='ScooterMcTavish' timestamp='1386514319' post='8267093']
[quote name='jtbrown248' timestamp='1386443912' post='8263813']

Not sure about others on the forum but talking about adding or subtracting spin like a dial setting on hose end sprayer is a bit of a reach for 95% of the players out there.

For the most part, I believe hitting a draw on command and maybe little backspin on a wedge into the green is the most we look to do. Not meaning to bust some chops but I believe we have slid into golf techno speak rather than just plain ole "Hell I like this ball cause it seems to go further and I like the way it putts"
[/quote]

Good post, though I have enjoyed NRJyzr's back and forth with Monte. I had read Monte's piece a time ago, and although I can see why a Lady IQ could be a better ball for some than a ProV, I think some of the conclusions drawn on the vintage balls are incorrect. As they taught us in statistics and research methods, it can be dangerous to draw conclusions from casual observations.

And although I hate to use tour stats to back up an argument, if vintage balls (or Lady IQs) are the best ball out there, then we would see these balls being played by virtually every pro without a ball sponsorship gig.

But if you like the feel of a ball, and you trust the draw/backspin action of a ball, then JT is correct.
[/quote]

80%+ of tour players over 35 would jump at the chance to play a tour balata, professional, or even a 384. They are not available. I had several tour players try and love the Precept IQ, but all but two didn't switch because of the aforementioned loss of yardage off the tee. The two that switched and used them for several weeks were disappointed when they discontinued them and didn't like the replacement.

[oldschoolrocker]

Let's not forget the majority of us in this section are 1. Older with our swing speeds not what they used to be, and 2. Playing older equipment, mostly forged blades and persimmon or laminate maple off the tee. Now, I really lick my chops when I can find an old Strata, or original Revolution in good condition. I'm not a gotta have data guy, at least not in golf, but I do know anything that involves physics can certainly be improved when optimum numbers are generated.