Matte vs Gloss

[Everardo]

Is there really much a difference here? Plus or Minus to either one?

[PMookie]

Plenty of info on MGS showing some performance differences under certain circumstances. They’re not the same..

[GregGarner]

Depends on what you're looking for. If you're prioritizing aesthetics, you might find the matte finish easier to see. If you're prioritizing performance, it's suggested that moisture significantly impacts spin on a matte ball compared to a glossy one. 

[Middler]

8 hours ago, PMookie said:

Plenty of info on MGS showing some performance differences under certain circumstances. They’re not the same..

Never liked matte finish balls anyway, but once I saw the MGS study about wet matte balls, I wouldn't touch one with a 20 foot pole...

[fixyurdivot]

I think the matte finish in colored balls is kind of cool and have played a handful here and there.  They are definitely harder to keep clean.  As mentioned, Tony Covey has done some tests showing the differences between matte and gloss on ball performance but to be quite honest, other than his statement in the Podcast link above (min 38:00) that folks should not play them in wet conditions, never seen the LM data.  

[PMookie]

1 hour ago, Middler said:

Never liked matte finish balls anyway, but once I saw the MGS study about wet matte balls, I wouldn't touch one with a 20 foot pole...

Same here. Nope!!!

[fixyurdivot]

3 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

At a 6 handicap, I'm not good enough to notice a difference in the way they play. Like most of the differences that mgs points out, I doubt it would affect anyone's game other than the scratch guys out there. (For example, the huge emphasis on percent of bad balls--I seriously doubt 99% of players would even know the ball was bad if they played it and it would have no effect on their scores.) I like the way the mattes look and feel, so I have no issue playing them. 

It would be interesting for the ball lab to take some of these "bad balls" (out of round, off center cores, weight, etc.) and LM test them against the "good balls".  If the strike repeatability of the swing robot cannot show the difference, I'm pretty sure none of us know which ball is which from course play.  No doubt part of Tony's intention is to help show manufacturing quality/consistency and whether we are getting what we expect and pay for but the extent it matters to ball flight/scoring... .

Regarding matte finish balls, his point that we don't see them in any top shelf tour balls is interesting.

[Everardo]

18 hours ago, greggarner said:

If you're prioritizing aesthetics, you might find the matte finish easier to see.

In the case of Maxfli Tour Matte White vs Gloss White, it'd be the same though. The thought came up when MGS promoted that special

[Middler]

13 hours ago, Riverboat said:

At a 6 handicap, I'm not good enough to notice a difference in the way they play. Like most of the differences that mgs points out, I doubt it would affect anyone's game other than the scratch guys out there. (For example, the huge emphasis on percent of bad balls--I seriously doubt 99% of players would even know the ball was bad if they played it and it would have no effect on their scores.) I like the way the mattes look and feel, so I have no issue playing them. 

I don’t think it’s a function of handicap as much as typical launch angle/spin. I’m a 12-14 HI but I still routinely stop/backup the ball on the green with spin, so I don’t want that to drop off (more) when it’s wet. If your normal approach is to land short and release (I know several very low handicap players who’re really good at it), no matter what handicap, I’d agree matte won’t affect you as much.

Or if you normally buy/play 2-piece ionomer/surlyn balls, matte won’t matter much. Does any ball maker offer a matte urethane tour ball, I can’t think of one, with good reason.

[RickyBobby_PR]

6 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

Yes, I'm a release and roll player who plays 2 piece low compression balls. You are unusual stopping or backing the ball up at that handicap, especially if it doesn't result in shots being short the vast majority of the time. Most players would be far better off playing for more release (not opinion, simply the statistic that most amateurs are short a VAST majority of the time). You seem to be an exception to that, so I would agree that matte might affect you more. 

He’s not that unusual. I’ve been like that since I was a high handicap player and several friends who are in the 12-18 also don’t get much roll out with tour level balls on approach shots. I see numerous mid handicaps I get randomly paired with who see similar results. A friend who passed away a few years back was a 12ish handicap who had above average short game. He could play hop-n-stop, low runners or in between. 

I see lots of mid handicap that even on longer iron shots that don’t have a ball run out. 
 

All of it based on technique and land angle that get generated from launch and spin.

As a 7ish I can play balls that run out or check up on partial shots. My shot choice is based on pin location, whether I have to carry anything and how much green there is to work with.

[Tom the Golf Nut]

In my opinion, if you have a pretty repeatable swing you can play almost any ball you want. After a very short time you will know how that particular ball reacts. Does it check up, roll out a foot or roll out 10 feet. You can just compensate for it. I'll try different balls often only because somehow they were given to me or I won them. I can shoot in the low 70's with a Srixon Super Soft, Topflight Gamer, ProV1 or a Maxfli Tour to name a few. Knowing what a ball will do with your swing is what matters. 

A matte ball will play fine. It just gets dirty / stains fast and proven to not perform well when wet. Visually they are easy to see or find! Just make sure it's a dry day.    

[Tom the Golf Nut]

9 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

I totally agree. Years ago there were lots of bad balls on the market. Now, the quality control and playability is outstanding for virtually all of them. That is why I stated earlier that the percent of "bad" balls that mgs identifies is a pretty meaningless stat. 99% of golfers would never be able to distinguish the "good" from the "bad" and it would have no effect on their scores.

I wouldn't say it a meaningless stat but rather a stat without performance measurability. Let's say through a x ray the ball is determined to have it's core not centered by 1/64" or something less. You now mark the ball so you know which is the lighter or heaver side. It you tee the ball up so the mark is on the left or right side.  The robot hits the ball and it moves "X" off the center line of the fairway. What we need to know is how much of an off center core makes the ball unplayable. First define unplayable is 4 yards right or left at 220 yards unplayable? Is it 8 yards? If all ball manufacturers standards for concentricity are within a certain limit and that limit keeps it in play then checking and reporting on of center cores doesn't mean much. But obviously it meant enough when Callaway Chrome soft was exposed and they retooled and changed their quality control due to MGS ball testing. So the test means something but we don't know how much off is a game performance issue for the average golfer.

[Middler]

1 hour ago, Riverboat said:

Yes, I'm a release and roll player who plays 2 piece low compression balls. You are unusual stopping or backing the ball up at that handicap, especially if it doesn't result in shots being short the vast majority of the time. Most players would be far better off playing for more release (not opinion, simply the statistic that most amateurs are short a VAST majority of the time). You seem to be an exception to that, so I would agree that matte might affect you more. 

Not quite so IME. Of the 25-40 (senior) players I play with regularly, a full third of us have mid/high trajectory and still stop or back up the ball, and plan on carrying approach shots close to the pin (we know our distances even if we don't hit them every time). And many of the "release and roll" players used to hit higher/more spin but don't anymore - though some of them are low handicappers. In my case I've been playing for over 50 years, and just haven't lost the ability to launch high with spin (yet). 

[Middler]

28 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

Again, I have to wonder what your greens are like. I doubt you would be doing that on my home course.

"we know our distances even if we don't hit them every time." Wouldn't a lower trajectory with less spin get the ones you missed a lot closer to the pin than those missed with a "stop it" trajectory? Could it be you are hurting your scoring still playing that style? Just a question. Think about it. 

I've played for 50 years all over the US, including a few world class courses, and currently play over a dozen courses regularly - I'd be surprised if your home course is that unusual. I've played on firm, soft and in between greens with a variety of grass types.

WADR I don't need to think about your second comment. Why adopt a "style" that won't work with traps or water hazards or add the unpredictability of landing off the green and hoping the bounce and roll is repeatable? Why do ZERO pros strive for lower trajectory or no spin? When I/we don't hit our stock distance, trajectory isn't a cause. Think about it.

You're welcome to the last word...we just disagree.

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 hours ago, Riverboat said:

You must be playing on soft greens. At my course, I almost never see even mid handicappers who can spin it on our greens. Even I play for no run out on courses that keep their greens soft and over receptive. If you're on a course with firm greens, keep an actual count. I'm sure you will find the vast majority of players can't back it up. Nor should they be trying. With the exceptions I've already admitted exist, most players would be better off playing more release, not less. 

I play on all types of greens locally and have played in several states. Of all the courses I play on a regular basis only a couple have firm and fast greens but they can still hold a ball with the right launch and spin. 
 

I never said any of them or even myself back up a ball especially on purpose. So using that to justify your stance or belief is irrelevant. 

[Everardo]

@Riverboat @RickyBobby_PR @MiddlerLet's keep this on Matte vs Gloss  

[RickyBobby_PR]

4 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

If you'll look at my response to middler above, the second paragraph explains why the lower, less spinny approach provides more margin of error and a game that travels more effectively.

The most extreme example would be the courses of Scotland and Ireland, where NOBODY I played with could stop a ball on the green unless it had just rained. While everyone around me was blowing up, I played to my handicap with just a small adjustment in desired carry distance for each course. And over here if the course is mushy, I just carry it all the way with the same trajectory, makes no difference if your launching high with spin on greens like that.

You are talking one aspect of the game and ignoring the aspect of full swings.  Around the green getting the ball in the green and rolling like a putt is a good thing for a lot of golfers and most teachers I’ve been too recommend this. That shot can be played with any type of ball.   But there’s so much more to golf and the short game than just around the greens.

 

 

[ChitownM2]

I think there is a bit confusion going on here about what it means to have a higher trajectory higher spin "game" vs. playing it short and getting letting the ball run out.

I would agree that there are very very few players who can consistently "bring the ball back".  I don't know anyone whose game is built around consistently flying the ball to the hole or just past and then spinning the ball backwards 3 or 4 feet like you hit the "backspin" button on a Golden tee machine.  It is however, pretty common to hit a PW onto the green and put enough spin on it to get that to stop with 1 or 2 bounces and roll out less than 10 feet.  The same can be said of most of the other higher lofted scoring clubs. 

Likewise, I don't think either approach really is better than the other in regards to coming up short.  Most people come up short because they don't know their distance and don't take enough club and that has very little to do with whether they are trying to hit a green and stick or land short and roll up on to it.  In fact, I'd argue that playing it short and trying to roll it up is going to be a worse approach for a lot of people.  When you mis-hit the ball and come up short, you're going to be even shorter and farther from the hole if you were trying to land it 7 yards short of the green to begin with.  Additionally, if you are offline and hit it into the rough instead of the fairway or apron, you're goign to be really short because you aren't goign to get much roll through the rough.

Regardless, there is really no upside to matte golf balls other than cosmetic looks when new.  They don't perform as well when damp/moist and they get dirty faster and don't come clean.  I see zero reason to actually play them if you are trying to play your best golf possible.  Now if you just want something that looks cool and are more interested in knocking back a 6 pack with your buddies over 4 hours on the course then by all means play whatever you want.

[BIG STU]

Well as far as I go with my trap cut swing I can spin any ball. Now my course as a norm the greens are not receptive so I use a bump and run a lot. One day in the Scramble on our 18th we had like 60 yards in. I knew the green was not holding. One of my partners was in tight and I knew one of us could make the birdie putt. Now the Pro who is one of the owners were on the patio that overlooks the 18th green. I slipped down an old Maxfli HT-100 which is a wound balata ball. Threw it past the hole and spun it back. Now I will admit I did hit a Wilson JP 60* with hogged out ( illegal) grooves. Oh yeah it spun. The guys on the patio were amazed. My Pro bud did not bat an eye he told them I more than likely snuck a Balata ball in.

On the original subject now I mostly play Srixon balls since I have won so many in the Shootouts and in Raffles. When I knock around by myself on a practice round if I do not have a used ball I will use a Srixon Marathon ball which is a cheaper 2 piece ball. I messed around and played one 36 holes and decided to mess with one of the owners ( you gotta know this place always something going on). The Srixon Rep was in there too. I threw them that battered Marathon and told them that Srixon should be ashamed to put their name on that ball and that our club should be embarassed for selling them or giving them away for prizes. LOL I can not get anything over on these guys. First thing out of the owner's mouth was how long I had played that ball? I told him and he said I was probably the only person there that could get 36 holes out of a ball. Those balls are ok for the price point. The other day I played a Q-Star Tour for 45 holes and it was scuffed and dinged up and had lost its luster. It looked like a Matte ball.  In fact I caught and joined up with a fellow member and he had picked my ball out of the hole and asked ' when did Srixon make a Matte Q-Star Tour?  I told him I did not know then he realized that I had more than likely played the ball for a while which was true. But Matte or not it does not bother me. In cooler weather I play the Srixon Soft Feels. LOL I have about 3 dozen green ones. What is funny I won one dozen on the Nine and Dine one afternoon. The next week on the raffle I won a fifth of Fireball. The team that won the Shootout won a Dozen Green Soft Feels each. They they traded me 2 dozen Green Soft feels for the fifth of Fireball because I do not drink anyhow. With me it does not make any difference on the color of finish of the ball as long as it hits ok. And free Srixons hit real good

[Middler]

1 hour ago, Fenix said:

@Riverboat @RickyBobby_PR @MiddlerLet's keep this on Matte vs Gloss  

I’m done, but good luck controlling thread drift, comes with public forums. You’ve gotten your answers for the most part anyway.

[BIG STU]

12 minutes ago, ChitownM2 said:

I think there is a bit confusion going on here about what it means to have a higher trajectory higher spin "game" vs. playing it short and getting letting the ball run out.

I would agree that there are very very few players who can consistently "bring the ball back".  I don't know anyone whose game is built around consistently flying the ball to the hole or just past and then spinning the ball backwards 3 or 4 feet like you hit the "backspin" button on a Golden tee machine.  It is however, pretty common to hit a PW onto the green and put enough spin on it to get that to stop with 1 or 2 bounces and roll out less than 10 feet.  The same can be said of most of the other higher lofted scoring clubs. 

Likewise, I don't think either approach really is better than the other in regards to coming up short.  Most people come up short because they don't know their distance and don't take enough club and that has very little to do with whether they are trying to hit a green and stick or land short and roll up on to it.  In fact, I'd argue that playing it short and trying to roll it up is going to be a worse approach for a lot of people.  When you mis-hit the ball and come up short, you're going to be even shorter and farther from the hole if you were trying to land it 7 yards short of the green to begin with.  Additionally, if you are offline and hit it into the rough instead of the fairway or apron, you're goign to be really short because you aren't goign to get much roll through the rough.

Regardless, there is really no upside to matte golf balls other than cosmetic looks when new.  They don't perform as well when damp/moist and they get dirty faster and don't come clean.  I see zero reason to actually play them if you are trying to play your best golf possible.  Now if you just want something that looks cool and are more interested in knocking back a 6 pack with your buddies over 4 hours on the course then by all means play whatever you want.

A lot of high spin versus low run depends on the greens and environment. Back in the day I was a high launch high spin player due to the Balata ball etc. When I moved down here because of the wind I had to learn to hit the low runner or low checker. Also balls have changed so much. At my home course our greens are not really receptive and combined with being about a mile and a half off the ocean as the crow flies you have to learn to run it some plus we have some funky undelations and of course Ocean winds. One thing that is funny-- My lifelong friend back in the balata days was the absolute best on the one hop and stop shot with even a 60*. I never could hit that shot then. When we got the modern balls he can not hit that shot worth a hoot anymore. After we went to the modern balls I can hit that shot go figure.  And honestly I do not see any performance difference in matte balls in wet conditions but that may just be me so I will not argue that point

[GregGarner]

7 hours ago, Middler said:

Does any ball maker offer a matte urethane tour ball, I can’t think of one, with good reason.

OnCore does (Elixr) as well as Golf Galaxy in the Maxfli Tour

[ChitownM2]

49 minutes ago, Riverboat said:

I think you are placing way too much stock in the effect the ball will have on your game. I've seen no discernable difference in performance for my level of play. In fact one of my five under par rounds this year was with a matte red supersoft on a cold, damp day. Love the look and feel of that ball. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the ball has that large of an affect either.  It's like measuring strokes gained, we might be talking about 0.4 strokes difference per round between balls.  If I had to guess 98-99% of the results on the course are a direct reflection of the skill of the player.  I'm sure that a 6 handicap such as yourself could piece together a set of clubs from the lost and found and play with a $6/dozen Nitro walmart special and post a better score than I with clubs that are fitted to me and playing a ProV1.  

My only point is that with all things being equal, I don't see a point in playing a matte ball when I could get a standard finish ball that performs better for the same price.  I basically wrote the same thing in my review of the maxfli Tour ball test that just wrapped up, why would I want to play a 2 piece surlyn matte finish Srixon Soft Feel @ $22/dozen when I can buy the urethane cover Maxfli ball for the same $22 price and have something that has been proven to perform better for both distance and spin?   

[Gusset]

I've seen a number of folks reference the MGS matte wet spin statement. I would be very interested in seeing the data. Watching the youtube clip, Tony does seem quite adamant, and that counts for something. However, between my not knowing what "significantly" means when the blog summary says "...matte finish balls are affected more significantly by moisture", and the test described in this thread ( https://forum.mygolfspy.com/topic/38535-data-re-tony-coveys-matte-balls-claim/ ), I don't feel as though I can fully understand the phenomenon.

The test in the thread I referenced, as I read it, was not intended to challenge anything, but rather to attempt to put some rough numbers to things. While it was presumably not performed in as rigorous and controlled of a lab setting (I don't know what the standard deviations were, groove condition, etc.), it suggests the exact opposite trend, and does so strongly enough that it's hard to categorically dismiss as a test anomaly.

In either case, though, at my playing level and with my inconsistencies, I'm not sure how much it matters. Generally speaking, when the grass/ball and club are wet, it usually means the air is heavier, which has its own effects on a shot (hard to factor in with a studio test). Until recently, a change in backspin and rollout weren't on my list of concerns. Great...one more thing to worry about!!! 

Anyway, it doesn't seem likely that I'll ever get to see a summary of the MGS data on this, but it would be cool to see one.

Full disclosure: after spending my entire golfing life playing mostly balls found on the course, and recently deciding to give consistency a try, I've been using matte red Volvik New Vivids exclusively of late. I chose this ball mainly because I really like the in-air visibility. They're a smidge harder to see against green grass, but, "I lost it..." are three words I haven't said in some time while tracking a shot.

[RickyBobby_PR]

4 hours ago, Riverboat said:

To clarify, I was talking about full shots not short game. Do your own thing. In deference to fenix, back to matte vs gloss.

So mid handicaps shouldn’t play a shot that lands and stops or barely rolls out because it’s not predictable but that same golfer should try to land on a certain spot and plan for X feet of rollout because that is more predictable? Makes zero sense. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

My last post in the thread to answer the OP matte balls suck, just ask Bubba.

Also some yellow balls aren’t as good as their white version. See the previous first mgs ball study and the yellow srixons

[pakman92]

3 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

My last post in the thread to answer the OP matte balls suck, just ask Bubba.

Also some yellow balls aren’t as good as their white version. See the previous first mgs ball study and the yellow srixons

Wait, what?  Yellow balls perform worse than white counterparts?  I couldn't locate the said ball study.  Does this apply to all yellow finishes or just Srixzon?  I play mix of yellow and white ProV1s.   I didn't know to look for differences, but I didn't notice anything obvious on thousands of balls I've hit on launch monitors.

[BIG STU]

11 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

My last post in the thread to answer the OP matte balls suck, just ask Bubba.

Also some yellow balls aren’t as good as their white version. See the previous first mgs ball study and the yellow srixons

Well the Volvik balls suck I will agree---- I got some somewhere on a demo deal and hated them--- My Bud whose daughter playes the Symetra Tour some was playing with us one day. I gave her a Volvik ball to try after a few shots she asked if this was a joke? That ball hits funny. I told her yeah I know just wanted to see if it was me or not--- I can remember when I saw Bubba on TV playing that ball and I told the wife that the ball sucked that even Bubba could not make it perform and yes he had a bad year for him that year but he switched back to Pro V and he vastly improved the next year and you could see the control he had with the Pro V on his approach shots and putting. I can remember when the yellow Srixons first came out a few years back they would really spin and the covers were durable compared to earlier Srixon offerings. As far as the Srixon line the colored ones perform for me as well as a white one. Vice balls I have played both standard and Matte finish and both of those performed well for me with no difference. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

8 hours ago, pakman92 said:

Wait, what?  Yellow balls perform worse than white counterparts?  I couldn't locate the said ball study.  Does this apply to all yellow finishes or just Srixzon?  I play mix of yellow and white ProV1s.   I didn't know to look for differences, but I didn't notice anything obvious on thousands of balls I've hit on launch monitors.

Search the best balls or mygolfspy best balls. The report will come up. There was at least one thread if not more on wrx talking about the test and colored balls. From what I remember the yellow was about 6 yards shorter than the white and the shot area between the two was significant. I don’t know if it was in the report or in the social media posts they were doing during the test but there was a comment about the yellow version and they wanted to examine it further.
 

The paint on the balls can affect the ball performance and it’s why titleist took a long time to ensure the yellow versions of the prov performed the same as the white.

[BIG STU]

14 hours ago, Riverboat said:

Point taken, although I'll take two piece over urethane every day. 

Not being sarcistic in any shape or form but I bet you would really like the Srixon Marathon ball which is a 2 piece ball. I think I have won like 3 15 ball packs over time. They are a good ball for what they are I use them on my practice and beat around play. I have also used them playing my Persimmon and classic stuff. Now I am not going to lie and say they spin like a Q-Star or go as far but that is just me. But for a guy who likes a 2 piece they may work well for you. I think for a 15 ball pack they retail around $18 or so .