Anyone do a ball fitting at golf Galaxy?

[Mr Orange]

Looking at booking at a golf ball fitting at golf Galaxy (only place in my area I can seem to find that does it). Has anyone done one specifically with golf Galaxy? Is it worth it? Was thinking $20 for a ball fitting seemed reasonable. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

I would never do a ball fitting indoors unless the only goal was to compare numbers on a monitor.

Ball fittings should be outdoors on grass, including on and ear a green, able to hit driver, woods and irons for full swings.

Its easier to do my own testing on the course during non peak hours where I can drop a few different balls and test side by side

[Mr Orange]

I would agree outdoor would be ideal but I don’t know of any place in my area that would offer that. I have a garmin r10 that I could test balls on too but not thinking that’s accurate enough for wanting to do a rest of different balls for the finer details. 

[Mr Orange]

I will add I figure worse case scenario $20 for an hour of hitting balls on a trackman is probably worth it without the fitting

[RickyBobby_PR]

17 minutes ago, Mr Orange said:

I would agree outdoor would be ideal but I don’t know of any place in my area that would offer that. I have a garmin r10 that I could test balls on too but not thinking that’s accurate enough for wanting to do a rest of different balls for the finer details. 

Titleist does ball fittings at ranges, you can search heir website.

 

You don’t know how accurate the monitor at golf galaxy is and when the last time it was calibrated. If it’s a trackman indoor fittings aren’t that accurate unless using rct balls or having markings on the ball.

also the skill level of fitters in big box stores isn’t always great. it also doesn’t matter how accurate the device is, you are doing a side by side comparison using the same monitor.

Imo the finer details are how the balls react outside like how wind affects the ball, how they check or don’t check on the green, etc

12 minutes ago, Mr Orange said:

I will add I figure worse case scenario $20 for an hour of hitting balls on a trackman is probably worth it without the fitting

Sure for data capture, but just hitting on trackman unless one can interpret the data and make the necessary correlations to what’s happening and why it’s just a bunch of numbers 

[cnosil]

I’d probably just do my own fitting based on how my current ball performs and the data collected during the MGS ball testing.   If you need/want more greenside spin, just find the balls that have that characteristic and buy a sleeve and try them out.   

[Mr Orange]

Decided to just book it cuz I’m curious to see how it goes and it’s only $20. At the very least can get some raw numbers and then take the top balls out on the course to see how they perform real world. Will most certainly swing back with how it goes to let others know if it’s worth doing.

[srooch2]

Following, I’m very curious how it goes. Keep us posted. If you can get some numbers and your results that would be great. 

[tony@CIC]

30 minutes ago, Mr Orange said:

Decided to just book it cuz I’m curious to see how it goes and it’s only $20. At the very least can get some raw numbers and then take the top balls out on the course to see how they perform real world. Will most certainly swing back with how it goes to let others know if it’s worth doing.

I'll be interested in how it went - more for curiosity then my trying it in the future. I would think that aside from possible issues with the SIM and hitting indoors, the other issue is; most likely they won't have many of the DTC brands or Big Box Store brands like Kirkland to try out.  

[Mr Orange]

12 minutes ago, tony@CIC said:

I'll be interested in how it went - more for curiosity then my trying it in the future. I would think that aside from possible issues with the SIM and hitting indoors, the other issue is; most likely they won't have many of the DTC brands or Big Box Store brands like Kirkland to try out.  

In theory I could go grab some Kirkland balls and bring them. It says you can bring the ball you use as a comparison. I normally use tp5 or prov1s but I’m curious what I will find out with some of the other balls such as chromesoft, srixon, Bridgestone and maybe even Maxfli.

[Frojoe22]

On 8/7/2023 at 8:51 AM, Mr Orange said:

Looking at booking at a golf ball fitting at golf Galaxy (only place in my area I can seem to find that does it). Has anyone done one specifically with golf Galaxy? Is it worth it? Was thinking $20 for a ball fitting seemed reasonable. 

I did a ball fitting at golf galaxy and I found the information helpful.  At the very least you can see the different spin, height, and carry distance of multiple balls.  When I went the fitter got brand new balls out to test and offered to compare any ball brands I wanted to do.  Unless you are a tour pro,  getting the numbers for spin, distance and height are a great starting point.  Feel is a big deal on the course,  but $20 bucks to get a general idea of what several different brands can do is worth it imo.  Good luck with it!

[atexmerk]

Keep us posted. Recently switched from Titelist Tour Soft to Vice Pro's and notice an improvement around the green

[Mr Orange]

So I would actually say it was definitely worth the $20 for the ball fitting at golf galaxy. I spent probably 1.5 hours hitting balls on the trackman. I hit Bridgestone, Srixon, Titleist, Taylormade, Callaway, and Maxfli. We started w/ my 56 degree wedge and hit 3 decent shots w/ each ball. Looked over the results and tried to narrow based on performance. Then moved on to a 7 iron and eliminated balls based on results. Finished w/ the driver and narrowed down to 4 balls that would all be reasonable for me to use and play w/ on the course. On top of all that I get access through trackman to see the data from my session which is really nice.

 

The 4 balls that I found would work the best out of what I hit were the Taylormade TP5, Callaway Chromesoft, Titleist Prov1, and Maxfli Tour. It was pretty hard to pick out a winner but I would say initial thoughts are TP5 given wedge results. It was nice seeing the Maxfli results given its cheaper overall and I might consider giving it a go on the course. I’ll give a summary w/ the data for each of the 4 balls below.

 

It was a bit interesting w/ the wedge and pretty difficult to eliminate balls after hitting my 56. Near all the balls I hit I had very similar spin rates of roughly 9200-9400 except for the TP5 which was the only ball that pushed 10k on the spin. The bigger differences came in launch/descent angles and apex height. While the TP5 spun the highest, the Maxfli tour launched significantly higher w/ a steeper descent angle. Carry distance was similar on all 4 balls and aside from the tp5 the spin was about the same. In terms of dispersion the Maxfli was best and TP5 a close second. Small sample size though so grain of salt of course.

We moved on the to 7 iron and this where it started to become easier to remove balls. Here it was noticeable on some of the balls launching too low. Spin rates weren’t crazy different among the balls. Prov1 was actually the highest spin rate here at 5400 while the rest of the balls were 5000-5100. Probably fairly negligible. Up to this point the Srixon Zstar was looking like one of the top balls for me. One of the tighter dispersions and good launch angle/descent. Of the 4 we landed on chromesoft was the tightest dispersion (only 2 shots for some reason here) and tp5 was a close second. Maxfli numbers looked solid but had the widest dispersion.

Driver was where we really eliminated a lot of balls. For the most part I was seeing sub 2500 spin w/ all the balls I was hitting. Its entirely possible that by this point I was getting a tad tired and getting sloppy w/ the driver but this is where the Srixon ZStar fell off. I don’t have the data for some reason but it was shorter than the rest and just didn’t line up data wise. Here The tour was the highest spin but only sitting at 2500 while the chromesoft and prov1 were the clear lower spinners sitting at about 2000. What is very interesting is the Maxfli had the longest average and the best dispersion. Its very very possible this can be chalked up to the fact we had forgotten about the Maxfli balls until the very end and I did a quick few shots w/ my wedge, driver, and 7 iron after I had completed all the other balls.

I will have to use these balls on course more to really get a better idea of what I like but I was honestly impressed w/ the results I saw w/ the maxfli considering its $10 less than the others for a box. These are all fairly small samples in the grand scheme of things so a grain of salt must be taken w/ the results. It was fairly clear however that these 4 balls were the top performers for me and it's helpful to narrow the field down instead of spending way more money to buy a sleeve of the 13 different balls I used. I would definitely say if you are curious or were thinking about it that it is definitely worth the $20 to do a fitting at golf galaxy for a ball. Considering you get access to the data afterwards you can do your own analysis if the fitter isn’t that good and at the very least you get a narrowed down option of balls to try at the course. I had been trying different balls and recently was trying the Chromesoft X LS but the results showed the Chromesoft was way better. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

Keep in mind that spin rates off a mat are going to be less than it will be from grass. This is why for me testing balls on a range or at a store isnt my preferred choice. 
 

Its good for comparing numbers side by side but true performance is best tested on grass 

[Mr Orange]

 

5 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Keep in mind that spin rates off a mat are going to be less than it will be from grass. This is why for me testing balls on a range or at a store isnt my preferred choice. 
 

Its good for comparing numbers side by side but true performance is best tested on grass 

Agree with you there. I was definitely having more issues with my wedge shots and consistency because I tend to take decent divots on the course. The data Is still useful imo as it’s aided in narrowing down balls to play with on the course. As I said before grain of salt with the results but there were for sure consistencies that helped to eliminate some balls. I plan to corroborate results by using these balls out on the course to see how they actually perform.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, Mr Orange said:

 

Agree with you there. I was definitely having more issues with my wedge shots and consistency because I tend to take decent divots on the course. The data Is still useful imo as it’s aided in narrowing down balls to play with on the course. As I said before grain of salt with the results but there were for sure consistencies that helped to eliminate some balls. I plan to corroborate results by using these balls out on the course to see how they actually perform.

Don’t want to always sound negative I’m this thread but that would be a yes and no. What appears to work in that environment may not on the course and what doesn’t work in the test may work on the course. 
 

Again it’s great to do that test in a controlled environment to compare numbers because you are getting the same lie over and over, but imo that’s all it does. 

[BMart519]

This testing is helpful to dial in driver numbers primarily and to a lesser extent, your 7 iron to short list some balls. But you still miss all of the aerodynamic performance of the cover (headwind/downwind, height, actual rollout) The spin is going to be different (likely lower) indoors than off grass and the turf interaction will be different which also affects the launch and spin numbers. Most of the wedge considerations would be around partial shots, greenside shots from the rough and other chips to gauge stopping power. All full wedge swings off a clean lie will have adequate spin to stop and be fairly similar in direction. 

Comparing 2 shots with the chromesoft on 7 iron is really going to skew your dispersion and standard deviation results vs using 3 or 4 shots with the other balls. This is a good trick when fitters are trying to get you into a new driver... Having the sample 1 shot smaller is always going to help the numbers when removing the bad ones. 

But $20 to get driver numbers is worthwhile as a check on attack angle, path and face direction as well as ball speed to know if you should favor a higher spin or low spin ball. Everything else requires testing on course or outdoor practice facility. 

[AndySP]

I would consider using the numbers to plug into the  Ballnamic software. Next best thing to going outside I think. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

3 hours ago, BMart519 said:

The spin is going to be different (likely lower) indoors than off grass and the turf interaction will be different which also affects the launch and spin numbers.

They will be lower and could be significantly lower, the type of mat plays a role too in the difference between mar vs grass.

 

8 minutes ago, AndySP said:

I would consider using the numbers to plug into the  Ballnamic software. Next best thing to going outside I think. 

The numbers could provide a bad recommendation because spin is going to be lower off mats for iron and wedges  and launch is going to be higher. Both won’t be just a little, there will be 2-3° higher launch and could be up to 2000 or more lower spin off mats. 
 

 

 

 

[AndySP]

1 hour ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The numbers could provide a bad recommendation because spin is going to be lower off mats for iron and wedges  and launch is going to be higher. Both won’t be just a little, there will be 2-3° higher launch and could be up to 2000 or more lower spin off mats. 

Driver numbers will be decent though. If I had already bought the ‘fitting’ I’d consider getting a few options that are based on actual ballflight while I’m at it. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

Just now, AndySP said:

Driver numbers will be decent though. If I had already bought the ‘fitting’ I’d consider getting a few options that are based on actual ballflight while I’m at it. 

While the driver numbers will be more accurate the best way to approach things is for the driver to the ball and not the ball to the driver. So while he could get a ball that fits his driver it clubs be a disaster for the rest of his game. 

[AndySP]

34 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

While the driver numbers will be more accurate the best way to approach things is for the driver to the ball and not the ball to the driver. So while he could get a ball that fits his driver it clubs be a disaster for the rest of his game. 

I get that. I just think you don’t have to let “the best” be the enemy of “the good.”

After spending the $ I would want to explore all the options and see what they point to. Personally, I can afford to test some golf balls, but cannot afford a new driver. I’d want to see what the ball changes for my game.
 

Anecdotally,  Marty Jertson (of ping) uses several different balls during his rounds depending on the circumstances, and he has plenty of club options. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

10 hours ago, AndySP said:

get that. I just think you don’t have to let “the best” be the enemy of “the good.”

Its an approach imo for those who aren’t trying to play theIr best and ensure that the one thing that is used on every shot is the best for them. It’s what can be referred to as mediocre mentality.

10 hours ago, AndySP said:

After spending the $ I would want to explore all the options and see what they point to. Personally, I can afford to test some golf balls, but cannot afford a new driver. I’d want to see what the ball changes for my game.

This is where most amateurs go wrong. They play different balls, not only different manufactures but different designs. They don’t pick a ball and stick with it then fit the top end of the bag to it. Once you have that dialed in then testing other balls is a nice change of pace to see what else is out there. It’s how I test balls. I have my bag setup that’s fits from green to tee. Testing will then tell me if something new on the market is better than what I have. But if it causes me to have to change a club to make It work better then it’s not worth switching balls.

some tour level balls perform equally across the board for me spefically tp5 and 5x compared to the prov1 and 1x. I can swap those balls with no issues with any club. Other balls work great with irons and not wedges or driver and some great off the tee but not great with irons and wedges.

but all anything that gets tested is done on the course in regular playing conditions. I can visually see what’s going on as well as where the ball ends up off the tee compared to my gamer as well has how they react with shots into the green and around the green

10 hours ago, AndySP said:

Anecdotally,  Marty Jertson (of ping) uses several different balls during his rounds depending on the circumstances, and he has plenty of club options. 

While I haven’t seen what he does or what he uses, I wouldn’t be surprised if due to the availability of clubs he has a driver setup for each different ball design. Also going to guess that his skill level allows him to adjust pretty quickly to different balls and clubs like most good golfers which isn’t something that’s common among mid and high handicaps

 

edit: Another thing to point out is trackman indoors reads low as well and rct balls will give more accurate results, so even the driver numbers are going to be inaccurate from this session.

Not to mention as I pointed out in a previous post the last calibration of the device is unknown.

Too many negative variables for it to be an accurate fitting and to have those numbers plugged into any tool for ball or club recommendation 

[Mr Orange]

At the end of the day I got a bunch of data from different balls…I’ve said from the get go that I knew it was to be taken with a grain of salt. I’ve been using tp5 and Prov1 and been happy overall with the results. I have a garmin r10 at home (which I know not as accurate) that I can do more testing. This gave me some hard data to work with and as I said before I plan to try out chromesoft and the maxfli balls on the course to corroborate results. As I said in in the beginning at worse I got an hour and a half on a trackman for $20. Best case I’ve got good data on the ball that’s best for me. I feel like several of you are really missing the point and finding every fault you can. Never once did I say I was taking this as gospel. Even if the numbers are lower I have a controlled environment where I could test the balls side by side. 4 stood out. Next step is experiment more on the course.

 

I stand by my recommendation that for $20 a ball fitting at golf Galaxy is worth the rather cheap expense assuming you know that’s it’s not an exact science and should be corroborated with on course play. $20 is way cheaper than buying 15 different types of balls and going out on the course. 
 

If you really read my post with the results I made it very clear that that it was small sample sizes and corroboration on course needs to happen. 

[cnosil]

8 minutes ago, Mr Orange said:

 

If you really read my post with the results I made it very clear that that it was small sample sizes and corroboration on course needs to happen. 

Contrary to what some on here think, I believe you got some useful information.  You got some ballpark numbers to determine if you are a high or low spin player and some balls to try out.  From there I would leverage the 2021 and upcoming MGS data to make tweaks.   If you want/need a little more spin, the test results will give you some things to try.   At the end of the day you gained knowledge about your game which you can possibly translate into future success.  

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

14 minutes ago, Mr Orange said:

At the end of the day I got a bunch of data from different balls…I’ve said from the get go that I knew it was to be taken with a grain of salt. I’ve been using tp5 and Prov1 and been happy overall with the results. I have a garmin r10 at home (which I know not as accurate) that I can do more testing. This gave me some hard data to work with and as I said before I plan to try out chromesoft and the maxfli balls on the course to corroborate results. As I said in in the beginning at worse I got an hour and a half on a trackman for $20. Best case I’ve got good data on the ball that’s best for me. I feel like several of you are really missing the point and finding every fault you can. Never once did I say I was taking this as gospel. Even if the numbers are lower I have a controlled environment where I could test the balls side by side. 4 stood out. Next step is experiment more on the course.

 

I stand by my recommendation that for $20 a ball fitting at golf Galaxy is worth the rather cheap expense assuming you know that’s it’s not an exact science and should be corroborated with on course play. $20 is way cheaper than buying 15 different types of balls and going out on the course. 
 

If you really read my post with the results I made it very clear that that it was small sample sizes and corroboration on course needs to happen. 

Yes you have some data, but as I talked about in my recent replies which were to address a specific comment about using ballnomic, they numbers aren’t accurate enough to put in the tool to get a ball recommendation and could result in a bad choice of ball. Using the irons as an example 2° difference in launch and 2000 or more extra spin could be bad for you on the course where the numbers on the monitor look good.

And the testing on the course based on what you see is important but because the numbers have the significant difference you could be eliminating balls that will work for balls that won’t based on these skewed numbers 

[Mr Orange]

6 minutes ago, cnosil said:

Contrary to what some on here think, I believe you got some useful information.  You got some ballpark numbers to determine if you are a high or low spin player and some balls to try out.  From there I would leverage the 2021 and upcoming MGS data to make tweaks.   If you want/need a little more spin, the test results will give you some things to try.   At the end of the day you gained knowledge about your game which you can possibly translate into future success.  

 

This is exactly how I viewed that test. I at least know that it’s worth buying a box of maxfli tour balls to try them out and chromesoft is now on that short list. I’ve used Prov1 and tp5 a decent chunk but it was always in the back of my mind whether I should be looking at prov1x or tp5x. So hard to test ball Vs ball on the course when every day is different conditions and might be swinging a little different on different days.

[AndySP]

13 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

mediocre mentality.

Ouch…
 

Well I’m a (happy) mediocre golfer, so the moniker fits.

Even so, I think @Mr Orange came out with more data than he had, which is a useful to get in the ballpark. Whether it’s good enough for your game is a personal question.

[TG8]

On 8/10/2023 at 8:42 AM, Mr Orange said:

At the end of the day I got a bunch of data from different balls…I’ve said from the get go that I knew it was to be taken with a grain of salt. I’ve been using tp5 and Prov1 and been happy overall with the results. I have a garmin r10 at home (which I know not as accurate) that I can do more testing. This gave me some hard data to work with and as I said before I plan to try out chromesoft and the maxfli balls on the course to corroborate results. As I said in in the beginning at worse I got an hour and a half on a trackman for $20. Best case I’ve got good data on the ball that’s best for me. I feel like several of you are really missing the point and finding every fault you can. Never once did I say I was taking this as gospel. Even if the numbers are lower I have a controlled environment where I could test the balls side by side. 4 stood out. Next step is experiment more on the course.

 

I stand by my recommendation that for $20 a ball fitting at golf Galaxy is worth the rather cheap expense assuming you know that’s it’s not an exact science and should be corroborated with on course play. $20 is way cheaper than buying 15 different types of balls and going out on the course. 
 

If you really read my post with the results I made it very clear that that it was small sample sizes and corroboration on course needs to happen. 

For $20 that is a steal to use a trackman.  Im going to do this just for fun now.