Performance of submerged golf balls

[cnosil]

this hit my inbox’s today.  maybe it’s time to do some fishing for ProVs!
 

https://www.golfsciencejournal.org/article/81254-retention-of-golf-ball-performance-following-up-to-one-year-submergence-in-ponds

 

[GolfSpy_APH]

15 hours ago, cnosil said:

this hit my inbox’s today.  maybe it’s time to do some fishing for ProVs!
 

https://www.golfsciencejournal.org/article/81254-retention-of-golf-ball-performance-following-up-to-one-year-submergence-in-ponds

 

I do believe at some point there will be a lab series by MGS on lake balls... I think?

[Josh Parker]

49 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

I do believe at some point there will be a lab series by MGS on lake balls... I think?

And I'm sure it will be an easier read that what I just read thru. 

It's an interesting read and gives golfers another cheaper option at premium golf balls. 

[Bobbers]

Just read the research.  I'd been aware of the earlier work showing significant performance decline for submerged golf balls but this latest work was a real revelation.

I'd given up on shagging anything that was in water just on general principle and limited myself to taking an extra peek or two in the wooded areas.  This has me rethinking that entirely.

I agree, a test using a wider range of golf balls to include some of the popular DTC offerings and some popular 2 piece golf balls would be an excellent idea.

[JohnFP]

What a neat test, No more guilt for me !!!!!

Edited November 17, 2023 by JohnFP

[Slight shank]

Interesting I would not have played a pond ball before reading this. I would have expected more like a 20 yard loss from a year submerged 

[josmi15]

Interesting read.  I guess I won't be so quick to turn em away when I find them next to mine.  

[cnosil]

3 hours ago, Josh Parker said:

And I'm sure it will be an easier read that what I just read thru. 

That is the difference between what MGS publishes and a scientific article.   When I have talked to Adam, he continually reminds me that the MGS articles need to be written so everyone can understand and not delve into the technical,depths. 

[Guest Archie Shipp]

I've haven't bought balls in over twenty years. I find way more than I lose and am even able to sort them and only play brands/models that I want (ProV1 above 70 degrees, Supersoft below).  I recently was as low as a 6 handicap at 50 years old.  I could have told anyone that used balls, including the formerly wet ones, are perfectly fine, but it is nice to have the data to confirm that.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Archie Shipp

[unccross]

That’s great to know, when I started back playing a few months ago I bought a couple dozen used pro v’s from someone local on marketplace. 

[rjacobs4]

Interesting and well done study.  
However…this scientific study CLEARLY does not take into account the bad karma brought about by using balls that have chosen to leap to their death into ponds.
 

p.s.  I have been using mint condition used (not refurbished) ProV1s for a few years.  No issues.

[saz0418]

I am pretty sure That MyGolfSpy *did* include refurbished (reconditioned) balls in their last test (or the one, prior).  They found all sorts of physical defects that had been "polished over. "    They put some filler into defects/scuffs, and re-coat the balls to make them look good.  But the balls were the worst performing of the 30 or 40 that they tested (as I recall).   The review (from the tests) was pretty uncomplimentary.      

I bought a box of 50 5-star balls (Bridgestone) from Amazon a few years back.  My experience was that I would hit a shot (short) and not know if it was MY mis-hit or if the ball was dead.   I didn't like the uncertainty and not having confidence in what I was hitting.  Wasn't worth the worry. 

[Golf Dawg]

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing!

[JRDuck40]

21 hours ago, cnosil said:

this hit my inbox’s today.  maybe it’s time to do some fishing for ProVs!
 

https://www.golfsciencejournal.org/article/81254-retention-of-golf-ball-performance-following-up-to-one-year-submergence-in-ponds

 

Interesting read. And yeah, one yard lost is not all that significant. But any ball I find in water goes directly into the 5 gal bucket in garage. Officially deemed for practice only. That being said, if a ball is found that is embedded in mud or found in tall grass and it's something that I normally play, then it's fair game. 

@mygolfspytest - Would be interesting if you would run a similar test with let's say ProV1x, TP5x and ChromeSoft to name a few to see how they would stack up against one another. 

[EnderinAZ]

26 minutes ago, rjacobs4 said:

Interesting and well done study.  
However…this scientific study CLEARLY does not take into account the bad karma brought about by using balls that have chosen to leap to their death into ponds.
 

p.s.  I have been using mint condition used (not refurbished) ProV1s for a few years.  No issues.

Yep I agree. Lost golf balls, whether in the bushes, trees, or water want to be lost. If not they wouldn't be in those nasty places in the first place. 

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't fish out too many ProVs. Top Flites, Taylormade distance, Noodles, and other less expensive balls yes I get these a lot. ProVs, ChromeSoft, ZStars, TP5s not so much. I guess spending 55 dollars+ on a dozen balls makes you much more likely to pull out your "pocket fisherman" and go fishing for that drowned ball. 

Anyway that was a very interesting article and says that pristine AVX I pulled out of the water yesterday will not go automatically into my junior golf donation bag. 

[Franc38]

To be honest, I hardly see a difference between the different balls I do play regularly with (ranging from the "shortish and super spinny" Inesis tour 900 to the "best in class" proV1x left dash, to some "cheap and nasty 2-piece ionomere", except on the spin for shorter shots. So outside of 160 yards, it's fairly comparable, and going from one to the other do not let me wondering at distances or trajectories: I get what I put in the ball, regardless  of the model. If I'm swinging it well, I can have 4 7-irons within 2m of each other with 4 very different ball models.

There certainly is some difference in distance, apex, spin... But my iron game is not good enough to really see that (mind you, I'm a VERY VERY Good iron player, for a 7-8 hcp, if I may say so myself... my weaknesses are more on driving and putting and they are BIG weaknesses)

The one "mygolfspy" thing that I find hard to believe is the average distance difference (in balls, and in clubs, but that's for not controlling loft in a statistically well done way).

So it makes perfect sense that the lake balls are not that different performance wise.

 

 

 

That being said, i still prefer playing a new cheapo to a lake proV1... karma, as said by others before!

Edited November 17, 2023 by Franc38

[Langstonha]

I'm always testing seb's (someone else's balls)found in the pond.  I also find no difference plus they are nice and clean.  Saves me some $$.  Plus it's fun to me to hawk those balls and with my 15' retriever I get some others can't reach. 

[Josh Parker]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

That is the difference between what MGS publishes and a scientific article.   When I have talked to Adam, he continually reminds me that the MGS articles need to be written so everyone can understand and not delve into the technical,depths. 

Absolutely. I know some folks may really enjoy the science behind the findings.  I'm just not one of those on this particular subject. Ha

[DymnDog]

As a scientist, I enjoyed reading such a well written study! I'm impressed at the level of detail (even giving the exact measurements of soap used to wash them).

The key point to me is that older studies (that set the prevalent mindset that submerged balls are no good) studied balls with composition and materials no longer used in newer balls.

[ChuckZ]

A lot of guys in our M/W/F senior men's group (The Rascals) spend way to much time looking for golf balls in our thirteen ponds during their rounds. If your ball goes in a lake/pond/water/hazard, whatever you choose to call it, you have three minutes to find it, nothing more to look for stray balls.  Take your drop.  Come back when you round is over or when the course is closing and there is very little traffic and do your hawking then.  If you pick up a ball or two within the time allotted but be fair to those playing behind you and move it along.  If I find a ball on the course and it is not in pristine condition and not a Prov1, I give it away to whomever will play it.  Otherwise it goes in a shag bag and on to the range the next round.  Normally do not find many balls, am blessed that I do not loose many balls, just wear them out.  Can play a Prov1 three rounds and in the shag bag.  I usually stock up on them during Titleist loyalty program in the spring.  Pay for three dozen and the fourth free with free shipping.  That usually will get me thru a year with one or two dozen I pick up at events thru the year as swag or gifts.  Do not object to playing water balls, object to holding up play to do it.   When the ponds are low, so tempting to pick up those twenty or so just laying there for the taking.  With respect.   

[jbern]

 A course I went to last week had one of their ponds drained for liner work and I was wondering this exact thing. I ended up grabbing 10 balls and calling it quits, but it seems like I should’ve kept at it! 6 of the 10 were pro V1s or V1xs and the other 4 were Bridgestone balls (e6 and e12 I think). 

Maybe I should head back for a “fishing” trip!

[Bob Pegram]

This reminds me of the joke that "My game is so bad I had to regrip my ball retriever."

[Shankdog]

That was a good read.  I would like to see MGS do a similar study and publish the data such as compression, weight, and diameter before and after a one year submersion.  

[Willie T]

On 11/16/2023 at 12:13 PM, cnosil said:

this hit my inbox’s today.  maybe it’s time to do some fishing for ProVs!
 

https://www.golfsciencejournal.org/article/81254-retention-of-golf-ball-performance-following-up-to-one-year-submergence-in-ponds

 

The article is a great read - albeit a little dry, still I found it engaging.  The difference they saw as compared to earlier testing looks to point to the better quality the manufacturer(s) or maybe we should say TItleist being employed in the making of current balls.  
For me - I have planed and still play “water” balls - usually found when looking for my own ball.  While the mantra “feel ain’t real” rings through the golf world, I don’t “feel” any difference between the water balls found and my personal stock non-water balls.  
BTW - the range at the local course I play most uses all varieties of balls - dedicated range, found, etc.  Most of the time, any found balls (wet, weedy, mud) not wanted are sent back to the range to go in it’s repository of balls….

[JRav57]

This speaks to the geek in me and of course leads to additional questions.  They tested new balls, but how many find their way into a pond on the initial strike.  Would have loved a cohort of “played golf balls”; do the same randomized test on golf balls that have been played 18 holes. 

Also this holds more Michigan pond water…can it be applied to those of us fishing balls from brackish water?  How does water temperature affect performance?  Does it matter if it is 3 months of summer or winter?

The mark of a good study is the questions that follow and this one is a rabbit hole…quite the enjoyable read (well skim)