Ball Spin Rollout Question

[golfer3134]

So I've been going over some of the 2023 ball test data and found something interesting that I don't quite know how to come up with an answer. Some balls in the 35 yd wedge test had high spin, high descent angle, and yet when comparing the total yardage vs carry, still had a longer rollout than balls with less spin/lower descent angle. And conversely some balls had low spin, low descent angle, but less rollout. Any idea why that may be? This wasn't the case in every ball by any means, but here are some of the more extreme examples:

High spin/descent, long rollout:
Taylormade TP5 - 2nd in spin, 10th in descent angle, 30th in rollout
Bridgestone Tour BXS - 5th in spin, 8th in descent angle, 40th in rollout
Wilson Staff Model - 6th in spin, 13th in descent angle, 27th in rollout

Low spin/descent, short rollout:
Snell MTB Prime X - 41st in spin, 34th in descent angle, 1st in rollout
Callaway Chrome Soft X LS - 40th in spin, 37th in descent angle, 8th in rollout
Titleist Pro V1x Left Dash - 35th in spin, 27th in descent angle, 6th in rollout
 

[cnosil]

13 minutes ago, golfer3134 said:

So I've been going over some of the 2023 ball test data and found something interesting that I don't quite know how to come up with an answer. Some balls in the 35 yd wedge test had high spin, high descent angle, and yet when comparing the total yardage vs carry, still had a longer rollout than balls with less spin/lower descent angle. And conversely some balls had low spin, low descent angle, but less rollout. Any idea why that may be? This wasn't the case in every ball by any means, but here are some of the more extreme examples:

High spin/descent, long rollout:
Taylormade TP5 - 2nd in spin, 10th in descent angle, 30th in rollout
Bridgestone Tour BXS - 5th in spin, 8th in descent angle, 40th in rollout
Wilson Staff Model - 6th in spin, 13th in descent angle, 27th in rollout

Low spin/descent, short rollout:
Snell MTB Prime X - 41st in spin, 34th in descent angle, 1st in rollout
Callaway Chrome Soft X LS - 40th in spin, 37th in descent angle, 8th in rollout
Titleist Pro V1x Left Dash - 35th in spin, 27th in descent angle, 6th in rollout
 

I think you need to look at all the data points to and not just a select few.  For example launch angle and ball speed are big factors in a balls performance.   The snell launched low and was one of the slowest in ball speeds which probably offset the slightly lower spin to get the least rollout.  

[jaskanski]

That data set set is pretty meaningless and incomplete without ballspeed and launch angle. Or the quality of the strike - particulrly on short wedge shots.

[cnosil]

1 hour ago, jaskanski said:

That data set set is pretty meaningless and incomplete without ballspeed and launch angle. Or the quality of the strike - particulrly on short wedge shots.

Confused, the dataset has those values and the robot was setup to hit the same spot for all the shots,  

[jaskanski]

Apologies - I didn't look at the data set - I was just going on the comments of the OP.

But now i have seen the data set - is it flawed because of the filters that you can apply? In addition, roll out is a very inexact science as friction (with the ground, the ball and gravity) comes into play with cover material and dimple pattern having some effect on this in terms of initial ball speed (off the face) and residual ball speed when the ball started to roll out and what sort of 'bounce' the ball had on first landing (nobody ever measures this metric). The speed the ball was rolling at (forwards once spin/bounce had depleted), relative friction between the two surfaces (the ball and the ground) will determine the roll out distance to some extent.

That's my guess anyway. But I tend to hit balls for myself to see what they feel like and how they react rather than relying on data which (as we've seen in this scenario) can be interpreted with a pinch of salt.

[GolfSpy_APH]

17 minutes ago, jaskanski said:

Apologies - I didn't look at the data set - I was just going on the comments of the OP.

But now i have seen the data set - is it flawed because of the filters that you can apply? In addition, roll out is a very inexact science as friction (with the ground, the ball and gravity) comes into play with cover material and dimple pattern having some effect on this in terms of initial ball speed (off the face) and residual ball speed when the ball started to roll out and what sort of 'bounce' the ball had on first landing (nobody ever measures this metric). The speed the ball was rolling at (forwards once spin/bounce had depleted), relative friction between the two surfaces (the ball and the ground) will determine the roll out distance to some extent.

That's my guess anyway. But I tend to hit balls for myself to see what they feel like and how they react rather than relying on data which (as we've seen in this scenario) can be interpreted with a pinch of salt.

The ball testing was done over a couple days and with extreme tolerances. They take a lot of pride in the consistency and results. Of course any data can be subject to scrutiny, but in terms of how close these metrics can be counted on this is as close as we are likely going to see or be able to trust. 

[jaskanski]

Besides - I think the test methodology pretty much admits this is the least accurate of all the tests:

35-Yard Wedge

The wedge portion of the test was designed to replicate a greenside shot of 35 yards. Rather than calibrate to specific launch and spin targets, we configured the robot to hit the calibration ball approximately 35 yards (total).

Test ParametersTest Averages (All Balls)

Club Used: PXG Sugar Daddy II 56°Total Distance: 37.3

Swing Speed: 37 mphBall Speed: 39.6

Calibration Launch Angle Target: n/aLaunch Angle: 37.3

Calibration Spin Target: n/aSpin: 5,489

Edited December 9, 2023 by jaskanski

[Josh Parker]

26 minutes ago, jaskanski said:

Apologies - I didn't look at the data set - I was just going on the comments of the OP.

But now i have seen the data set - is it flawed because of the filters that you can apply? In addition, roll out is a very inexact science as friction (with the ground, the ball and gravity) comes into play with cover material and dimple pattern having some effect on this in terms of initial ball speed (off the face) and residual ball speed when the ball started to roll out and what sort of 'bounce' the ball had on first landing (nobody ever measures this metric). The speed the ball was rolling at (forwards once spin/bounce had depleted), relative friction between the two surfaces (the ball and the ground) will determine the roll out distance to some extent.

That's my guess anyway. But I tend to hit balls for myself to see what they feel like and how they react rather than relying on data which (as we've seen in this scenario) can be interpreted with a pinch of salt.

The test give a great baseline and accurate numbers of the brands using a machine that repeats the same pure shot at the same speeds.

You can look at the most recent member test of the Titleist Test ball and see that the same ball has reacted differently to the testers.  Some found that the roll out was much more than others.  I found the ball to take a one hop, stop on most shorter iron shots.  

[jaskanski]

Exactly. Better to test the ball for yourself to see how it reacts. For me, it's all about feel and spin at 35 yards. I'm not discrediting the test or methodology which is very helpful in target golf ball selection, but when it comes to picking your gamer, only self discernment will truly get you to a final choice.

 

Edited December 9, 2023 by jaskanski

[Josh Parker]

8 minutes ago, jaskanski said:

Exactly. Better to test the ball for yourself to see how it reacts. For me, it's all about feel and spin at 35 yards. I'm not discrediting the test or methodology which is very helpful in target golf ball selection, but when it comes to picking your gamer, only self discernment will truly get you to a final choice.

 

It's a great baseline and very helpful in targeting a certain type of ball.

 

[jaskanski]

4 minutes ago, Josh Parker said:

It's a great baseline and very helpful in targeting a certain type of ball.

 

100% - there's no reason 'on paper' why I ended up using the ball I do from the test results which ranked it as decidely average, but it's what I like and what works best for me. Bridgestone Tour B RXS won out against the AVX. Go figure.

[Josh Parker]

The data in the testing is great.  It's really dissecting it and figuring out how to compare it to your game and ball striking.  

[Slight shank]

Assuming all these shots were hit in one session. Maybe a couple landed in an imperfection on the green? Like a slight pitch mark could drastically reduce rollout. Just guessing though who knows 

[ZackS]

5 hours ago, jaskanski said:

Exactly. Better to test the ball for yourself to see how it reacts. For me, it's all about feel and spin at 35 yards. I'm not discrediting the test or methodology which is very helpful in target golf ball selection, but when it comes to picking your gamer, only self discernment will truly get you to a final choice.

 

The point of the testing was to provide the data for you do what you want with. Not to say this is the best ball. I believe Tony even said this on the podcast. So if you wanted to use the data to say that X ball goes furthest so I want that one then great. Or you might say I love my ball but would like to have a little more spin. Then you can look at balls that are as close to your current ball in all other categories but spins more. Or maybe looking at the data you find a ball that performs the same as the ball you love in all categories except has a little more initial ball speed and therefore carries a little further. Why not go buy a sleeve and see if you like how it performs for you. With that said blindly taking the data and just saying this is my new ball and buy 5 dozen without seeing if you like the sound, feel and performance for you would be shortsighted. 

[cnosil]

2 hours ago, Slight shank said:

Assuming all these shots were hit in one session. Maybe a couple landed in an imperfection on the green? Like a slight pitch mark could drastically reduce rollout. Just guessing though who knows 

Pretty sure they were hit in one session.  They were hit onto an open range where PGX and Cool Clubs do testing and not a green.  

6 hours ago, jaskanski said:

Exactly. Better to test the ball for yourself to see how it reacts. For me, it's all about feel and spin at 35 yards. I'm not discrediting the test or methodology which is very helpful in target golf ball selection, but when it comes to picking your gamer, only self discernment will truly get you to a final choice.

 

100%.  The MGS ball test is simply a starting point just like a static club fitting or a Mizuno Shaft Optimizer fitting.    I would always suggest that you find your current ball and what metric you want to change (spin, height, ball speed, etc) and then find balls that trend in that direction.  Once you do that go actually hit the ball to make sure it does what you think it will do.   As you posted in another post, they published the setup for the test; which may not resemble any of your club delivery metrics which would alter all the data points.