[stevenhw8]

So I was looking for a new ball and stumbled upon this chart from 2011 with different ball compressions.

Does the old theory of matching SS to ball compression still apply? I read that for a SS of 95mph+ one should stick with balls with compression of 90 to 100.

I think I'm done playing with distance 2 piece balls and will move on to the 3 piece performance balls to help my green side game.

I will give the rest of my of my e6+, AD333, Diablo and Burner LDP to my wife (who actually swings faster than the average lady) and I got myself a bunch of Trispeed Tour, Vapor Speed, NXT Tour and Z-Star.

See how the mid tier balls compare to the higher priced Z-Star. Maybe it will be useful for someone with my SS who is also looking for the perfect ball.

Attached File(s)

•  GBS_CompressionHardness_Test_090811_v8.11a.pdf (99.61K)
  Number of downloads: 9359

[skihippy]

Thanks for the awesome chart!!

[GolfSpy Matt]

Interesting chart, thanks for sharing.

I get a lot of customers in the store (particularly middle aged or older players) who ask a lot of questions about compression. They want to know why compression numbers are listed on packaging or in magazines anymore. I've posed the question to some sales reps and they all seem to say, "Compression doesn't matter (as much) anymore." Anyone heard this before? If so, what were your thoughts? Was it a fancy way to say, "I don't know" or is there something to it?

[stevenhw8]

If it didn't matter, then why do the OEM still highlight low-compression, high-compression, super soft core, etc. on their boxes? To me it sounds like it does matter, but they don't want the player to know the real number so they can't compare/classify their products.

On the other hand, I read that due to the different technologies in the core, mantle, cover, etc... the compression will feel different. For instance, Callaway Solaire is supposed to be a women's ball, but it has a higher compression than the BB Diablo. After hitting a Diablo and my wife's Solaire... I felt the Solaire was still softer and mushier. So how can that be?

And that is why I asked in the beginning... does matching your swing speed to a compression number still apply?

Take another example... I was at the pro shop testing out balls. I was looking at a premium ball.

You had the Callaway i(s), Srixon Z-Star and ProV1. The fitter recommended these 3 softer models for my swing speed (as opposed to the i(z), Z-Star XV and ProV1X for 100mph)

But if you look at the chart, the Z-Star XV has a similar compression to the i(s) and ProV1, so the rule wouldn't apply.

This makes finding the right ball so hard

[GolfSpy Matt]

Yup, seems we're on the same page as far as being confused

I've been messing around with lots of different types of balls lately and it's been eye-opening how much difference there can be. I'd have a hard time committing to any ball, or feeling like I knew anything about a ball, unless I'd played it for a while.

[ninjacobra]

im seriously confuzzled...i have a 98-104 ss and i play a an e6 does that mean this ball is totally unsuitable for me?since the comp is 70 sth?

[wdgolf]

Quote

Ball compression should not be a factor in determining the best ball for you. In fact, no single element of design can be used by itself to predict performance or best fit a golfer. The Titleist golf ball line has a range of compressions and all are long at all swing speeds. Finding the best ball for you should be results focused - helping you shoot your lowest scores.

source: http://www.titleist....f-ball-fitting/

Conventional wisdom seems to state that you want to be able to compress the ball some, but not too much. Over compressing causes the ball to deform too much, possibly break, and creates irregular ball flight. Under compressing will cause a loss of distance because the core is not be utilized as a spring. Also, most of the shock of impact is in the head of the driver. I'm not sure how true any of this is because I couldn't find a reliable source for these statements.

The dimples of the golf ball effect lift: http://www.scientifi...ples-in-golf-ba

The one thing I focus on with golf balls is the cover and flight characteristics. You can look at balls at http://www.usga.org/.../gball_list.pdf to find ball spin ratings. Urethane cover golf balls tend to have high spin on wedges because the groves stick to the ball better, but lower spin on the driver because it holds it's shape well (so I've heard).

That's why I try to find the cheapest urethane balls that are mid-high compression (110 mph SS). I still would like to do a better scientific analysis using a launch monitor, but haven't found time to do so.

[wdgolf]

Huh, I just noticed the MG Tour C4 is no longer on the list of conforming balls. I wonder what happened...

[stevenhw8]

wdgolf, on 23 September 2011 - 06:58 PM, said:

That's why I try to find the cheapest urethane balls that are mid-high compression (110 mph SS). I still would like to do a better scientific analysis using a launch monitor, but haven't found time to do so.

Which others have urethane covers besides the known premium line (ProV1's, Z-Star, Tour i's, Penta, B330)? I know Bridgestone makes the e5 a 2 piece ball with urethane cover... I think it's the only one in the market which combines 2 piece distance and urethane spin characteristics.

Titleist's statement might be true, but they could also be saying that so all beginners feel they can play ProV1's and $$$!

[wdgolf]

I'm not sure if they're available in Germany, but the Maxfli Tour balls are urethane at 2 dozen for $40. The MG Tour C4 are $20/dozen.

[fozcycle]

wdgolf, on 24 September 2011 - 02:24 PM, said:

I'm not sure if they're available in Germany, but the Maxfli Tour balls are urethane at 2 dozen for $40. The MG Tour C4 are $20/dozen.

Both are excellent choices.......one can be purchased from dick's/Golf Galaxy and the other from the internet mggolf.com

[stevenhw8]

fozcycle, on 26 September 2011 - 08:37 PM, said:

Both are excellent choices.......one can be purchased from dick's/Golf Galaxy and the other from the internet mggolf.com

Is there a reason why the Tour C4 isn't USGA conforming anymore? Not that it affects me... just curious!

[wdgolf]

I emailed MG about it to find out, apparently they didn't know about this either and are looking into it:

Quote

Hello -

I am not sure why it is no longer on there. It WAS on the list and has been on the list for awhile. And we have not received any word from the USGA that there was a problem. So what we are doing is getting in contact with the people at the USGA to see why it is no longer listed and whether this is just some sort of oversight when they were compiling the list.

Sorry I can't give you a better answer - we basically right now have the same exact question on this as you do.

Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance.

Thank you,

MG Golf Customer Care