High Swing Speeds and Low Compression Balls

[Flv02]

Hey Golfers,

 

I have a quick question for all of you. How would a low compression golf ball react with a high swing speed. The reason I ask this is because around a month ago, Barbajo made a thread about the Wilson Duo and how he loved it. I have been using used balls ever since I started playing, but at $20 a dozen, I would buy new in a heartbeat. I have been looking forward to trying this ball out and I was wondering how the ball would react to my swing speed. It is a 40 compression ball and my swing speed on average is 107-110. Everyone has been saying very good things about it, so let me know if purchasing these would be a terrible idea before I buy them in around a week or two. Thanks for all of the help.

[JMiller]

Titleist has gone to great extents to prove to golfers that they don't need a lower compression ball... http://www.titleist.com/golf-ball-fitting/

 

I really don't think you can "over compress" a golf ball, a lower compression ball will spring more and really result in better distance but harder to control. I have hit some of my biggest Drives with a ladies ball before. If you are looking for a lot of distance 40 compression is the way to go if you are looking for more balance and control then 90 or 100 might be the better option. Companies don't really tell you anymore what compression they are selling, most time the "premium" balls are 90 or 100.

[GolfSpy WD]

From my understanding, in a nutshell: the softer the ball, the more it'll spin on full shots. The cover plays a role on all shot types and urethane is generally considered best.

 

The whole point of multiple piece balls is each layer will compress differently. On slower swing speeds (wedges), only the first layer matters and on high swing speeds (driver), all layers come into play.

[GolfSpy WD]

Titleist has gone to great extents to prove to golfers that they don't need a lower compression ball... http://www.titleist.com/golf-ball-fitting/

 

I really don't think you can "over compress" a golf ball, a lower compression ball will spring more and really result in better distance but harder to control. I have hit some of my biggest Drives with a ladies ball before. If you are looking for a lot of distance 40 compression is the way to go if you are looking for more balance and control then 90 or 100 might be the better option. Companies don't really tell you anymore what compression they are selling, most time the "premium" balls are 90 or 100.

 

I've heard both sides of this argument. The one I tend to buy is the harder the ball, the more efficient the transfer of energy, but also less spin, because energy is lost in the compression. So you need to hit a ProV1x very hard to get optimal spin and energy transfer.

[JMiller]

I've heard both sides of this argument. The one I tend to buy is the harder the ball, the more efficient the transfer of energy, but also less spin, because energy is lost in the compression. So you need to hit a ProV1x very hard to get optimal spin and energy transfer.

 

Yea I just linked Titleist point of view on the subject, My 8 iron will compress a ball as much as someone with a slow swing speed driver based on ball speed. The lower compression probably just feels better to a lot of slower swing speeds, I have had a few balls feel like a marshmallow coming off the face before when compression gets way low.

 

I would have to get on a LM to really look at 40, 60, 80, 90, 100 balls and how they spin for my swing and what launch angle and distance they have. But then each compression ball is designed to do something different so not really an apples to apples type of thing. My personal preference with a high swing speed of 114ish is to play a 90 or 100 compression for optimal all around performance.

[RoverRick]

I have no launch monitor data, but when I did ball tests I also used some of my wife's golf balls. They felt spongy and did not travel as far as the Pro V1X. The Pro V1 does not go as far for me and it does not spin as much around the green as the V1 for me. I had some Hogan Hawks, that were a 70 compression ball that I used when the temperature was below 40 but sadly I have used them all this winter. I thought about trying the Wilson 50/50 but decided to just stick with the same ball.

 

As an aside, I got 50 mint condition 2011 Pro V1x's today on UPS for a total of $88 from GolfballNut.com. They have some pen markings but not a scratch.

[revkev]

According to both Titleist and Frank Thomas compression has little or nothing to do with a ball's performance. I've asked for numbers from several sources that would contradict their claims and none have been forthcoming. Until I see numbers to the contrary I'm going with Titleist and Thomas because any data that I've seen has demonstarted that it's the ball construction type that controls spin and distance and not the ball's compression - Titleist intentionally offers a lower compression and a higher compression ball at each of its price points because the ball's feel is a matter of golfer preference.

 

There's really nothing more to say here unless someone is going to produce some hard data to contradict Titleist and Thomas

[JBones]

I can tell you this about the Callaway Chrome and Black balls; the Chrome is the lower compression ball and it has quite a bit of a higher launch off the driver than the Black. I literally hit them side by side off the tee, but the Chrome is all carry and the Black has roll. I choose to game the Chrome, mainly because it comes in a tour yellow (which I can see much better with my poor eye sight), even though it's significantly shorter into the wind (about 15-20yds). I don't have any data to back this up, just visual conformation.

[GolfSpy WD]

According to both Titleist and Frank Thomas compression has little or nothing to do with a ball's performance. I've asked for numbers from several sources that would contradict their claims and none have been forthcoming. Until I see numbers to the contrary I'm going with Titleist and Thomas because any data that I've seen has demonstarted that it's the ball construction type that controls spin and distance and not the ball's compression - Titleist intentionally offers a lower compression and a higher compression ball at each of its price points because the ball's feel is a matter of golfer preference.

 

There's really nothing more to say here unless someone is going to produce some hard data to contradict Titleist and Thomas

 

I'm curious about Titleist's testing. Since the Bridgestone folk are so accessible, I went on the BFit and ask them this question, here's the transcript:

 

 

Mellowman: Hi, this is Elliot. Welcome to B-Fit. How can I help you today?

 

Will: Hi,I was curious what was the actual difference between the B330 and the B330RX? We have a debate going with some friends as to whether ball compression actually affects performance or just the feel at impact?Thank you

 

Mellowman: Hello Will!

 

The B330-RX is a soft cored 3 piece urethane ball that is deigned for swing tempos under 105mph.

The B330 is a firmer 4 piece urethane ball designed for faster swing speeds...

The compression, layering, and materials used all factor into golf ball perfromance

 

Will: Do you have any studies I could read about how compression affects performance?

I ask because Titleist claims compression means very little, so I'm trying to sort out who is right (based on reading their research)

 

Mellowman: When hitting the golf ball with a relatively flat club face (think Driver)... You are mainly creating 2 kinds of energy, velocity and rotation...

 

Over the course of our industry leading 160,000+ live golf ball fittings we have seen first hand the relationship of ball speed to spin...

 

With a golf ball that is properly compressed we usually see an increase in ball speed and a decrease in driver spin (back spin and side spin)...

 

On the flip side of that, when I see golf balls not being properly compressed they sort of deflect off of the face (kind of like putting english on a pool ball)...

 

The deflective motion usually leads to higher spin rates and lower ball speed...

 

Additionally if you hit a golf ball that is too soft I usually see a decrease in ball speed due to overcompressing it

All of our head to head golf ball fitting numbers are for internal use only...

 

here is a general overview of our Precept golf ball technology, http://www.preceptgolf.com/en/scienceballs/index.htm

 

Will: Thank you, I will read through that. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain things. I'm using the B330RX right now and love it. I also have a box of B330s I haven't tried yet because I was fit for the B330RX, but I'll have to compare the two some time.

 

Mellowman: Here is something to keep in mind if you are thinking about trying the B330/B330-S...

 

The RX is easy to compress for 2 reasons, the soft core and the 3 piece construction...

Depending on your swing tempo the B330-S might be harder to compress not only because of the compression but also because of the extra mantle-layer, there is more interference between the driver face and the core.

Its not to say one ball it better than the other, there is a reason we have 4 different tour balls, each is designed with different ball flights and players in mind

 

Will: I actually meant B330 (plural), though I assume what you say still holds true in comparing the B330 and B330RX

 

Mellowman: Yes, same concept

 

Will: Thank you again for the explaination, I hadn't realized the B330/B330S lineup was a 4 piece ball

 

Mellowman: The mantle-layers on those balls are designed to do numerous things such as increase ball speed and reduce driver spin. Most notably they also help to snap the golf ball back to ints naturally round state after a violent impact with TOUR like club head speeds. By getting the golf ball back to round faster this helps with the aerodynamics which not only lead to distance gains but also help with stability in the wind

[RoverRick]

I would say that if the higher swing speed people could benefit from using a lower compression ball then we would have seen the Fred Funk, Brad Faxon, and Zack Johnson-like players using a 50 compression ball. This is like the biofuel debate (something I actually am an expert in) if it were as cheap and easy as many people make it sound, Exxon would be building cowshit plants instead of offshore oil rigs. Farmers are much easier to deal with than weather at sea, and the Arabs. Same thing with the low compression balls.

 

The claim is that it only effects the feel of the ball. When I tested balls, off of the driver, I did not have more than 7 yards between the worst ball and the best ball and even that was not consisitant enough to matter. This was back before swing changes and the proper shaft and I would occasionally pop one out there much further (maybe 15-20 yards) but that was a result of hitting it better I might do it with a Pro V1 one hole and a Laddie on the next and a few holes later a Top Flight Marble.

 

As I said earlier I did have some Hogan Hawks that I liked to play during the winter. They were 70 compression but with a urethane cover, and while I do not think they went much further in the cold, they certainly felt better. However, I did not particularly like them in the warm weather.

 

I copied the below paragraphs off of the internet, from GolfEquipmentSource.Com. This is crap.

I had to use bold letters and underline because they make two false statements in the same sentence. And all this time when I hear people refering to rangeballs as rocks, they should have been calling them clods because according to this article, rangeballs are softer than Pro V1's. They may actually have less compression, I rarely hit more than 6 just to loosen up.

 

 

Types of Compression Golf Balls

 

 

Most of the golf balls that are available in the market range between 80 and 100 compression units. These balls provide maximum distance and velocity. It would not be an easy task for an average golf player to manage these high compression balls. These balls are explosive in nature. There are some of the hardest balls, which have compression nearly 110 units. In addition, there are some medium compression balls as well. These balls have compression of nearly 90 units and comparatively travel more distance than their counterparts travel with 70 and 80 units. No doubt, these balls enjoy an edge over the low compression golf balls, as they are softer to touch and offer great controllability.

 

The Range balls are soft to strike and have low compression, which are around 70 units. You should note here that air temperature also affects the hardness of a ball. If a golf tournament is organized in a colder city, then you may pick a low compression golf ball, as it would hard to strike a golf ball with high compression in these cities. Moreover, you should also note down that the compression of golf balls is not the only feature to be considered while selecting a ball. There are other features to be looked into as well. These include the number of dimples in a ball, the number of pieces used to make the golf ball, and any such feature that help in feel or control of a golf ball.

 

 

[GolfSpy WD]

http://www.preceptgolf.com/en/scienceballs/index.htm

 

Some quotes from the link the BFit guy gave me:

 

On Compression:

 

At the moment of impact, a large one ton of force is applied to the ball, resulting in its being flattened and deformed. The energy from this deformation is stored within the ball. As deformation reaches its peak, the ball itself will seek to restore its original shape. This power of restitution is what causes the ball to fly off the club face.

 

If a golfer uses a ball that is too hard for his or her head speed, the ball will not deform adequately and will fail to store a sufficient amount of energy from impact. Conversely, if the golfer uses a ball that is too soft for his or her head speed, he or she will expend a lot of energy deforming the ball, and will not achieve sufficient distance. For example, if an average golfer hits a ball that has been designed for professionals or advanced players, the result is likely to be, not greater distance, but instead a loss of carry because the player will not be able to deform the ball adequately. The key to selecting balls is to find one which provides maximum restitution for one's particular head speed.

 

On Dimples:

 

Ideally, dimples should be spread evenly across the surface of the ball in recurring combinations of one shallow and one deep dimple. If this cannot be done with precision, golfers will lose distance on their shots, or find them veering to the left or right, even on shots where the ball has been hit squarely on center.

 

Chart how temperature affects initial velocity:

 

 

And here's an interesting graph that shows lower clubhead speed players actually benefit quite a bit from 3-piece balls:

 

 

In 3-piece construction most golfers can enjoy higher repulsion and softer feel than 2-piece balls thanks to the middle-layer, which enhances repulsion to be lost in adopting softer core for better feel.

[JMiller]

So my question to the people that think compression has nothing to do with golf ball performance please provide me proof that Hooke's Law and the rules of linear elasticity don't apply at all to a golf ball. I have the feeling that if you simply dropped two golf balls, that had the same weight, size, air drag only change was at what rate they could deform from strain (compression rate) you would find that at a 10 foot drop onto a smooth concrete floor the first bounce up into the air will be different.

 

Where it might get into them not mattering little or nothing is the rules that the USGA and R&A have on COR, there could be a point where a lower compression ball might not efficiently recover to its original state. Maybe this is where Titleist has gotten their theory from that all balls will in the end have a 0.830 COR.

 

EDIT: I was posting this before I saw the post by WD sorry.

[revkev]

JMiller - wouldn't the rules be important given that they are in play for golf balls? While I'm not a physicist (you'd need my son for that) I know enough about physics to realize that if you introduce variables that become constants you have to live with the laws of the new constants - another words a general rule of phisics is now changed because your universe (golf balls) has a differing rule from the general rule of the universe. So the USGA/R and A limitations apply here.

 

I love the charts above but it must be added that there are in fact higher and lower compression offerings among three piece, four piece and two piece balls -

 

The only actual independent side by side testing of golf ball study that I've seen is the one put out by golf digest - it tests balls at two swing speeds, fast and moderate - the balls tested perform remarkably similar off the driver and in fact sometimes the lower compression (Pro VI like) three piece balls are longer off the driver for a slower swinger than the two piece balls.

 

I've heard Bridgestone's schpiel - I've yet to see data on golf balls actually being hit that supports what they say - however it could be that their top Proline ball is constructed differently enough from other makers that what's true of their ball is not what's true of thet Penta or the Pro V series of balls - that's entirely possible. I'm certainly a moderate swinger of the club in terms of speed (mid 90's) and I'm longer with the B330s than any of the other Bridgestone offerings - that is those that I might consider playing. That would be contrary to their reported findings but again I'm one player.

 

I'm going to continue to stick with Frank Thomas and Titleist until I see golf ball data.

[RoverRick]

I am of the opinion that you do not benefit enough from more distance off the tee, when you are talking 5-7 yards to sacrifice one iota of short game performance. Certainly, if it is a 20 or 30 yard difference, but no matter how good you are, you will eventually you will miss the green. Even if you hit every green, you still have to putt. If you like a firmer feeling ball putting, chipping and pitching than that is the right ball. If you like a soft feeling ball than that is the ball for you. I think what Titleist is saying, is compression and any distance or other performance factors is always trumped by short game feel and performance and preferrence.

 

 

I know from painful recent experience that you can not drive the ball well enough, or hit the irons good enough to make up for a flawed short game. I also know from more recent, not so painful experience, that you can knock it in the woods and still get pars if your short game is good enough. That renders the hole arguement moot and the reason the short tour pros are not flocking to the lower compression balls, irregardless of if they can benefit off of the tee.

[GolfSpy WD]

My question for Titleist would be, if compression doesn't mean anything, what's the point of a 3-piece ball? I was reading one of their Team Titleist questions wish a 68 year old man (88mph swing speed) asking what ball to use. The answerer's justification was that a pro's mid irons will swing at the same speed as the older gentleman's driver.

 

If that's really the case, then the innermost layer of the ball isn't used at all by the amateur off the driver and he'll get a higher spinning shot because the middle layer is meant to produce more spin. Depending on the guy's swing, this may or may not be ok.

 

On the Titleist webpage, they show pictures of compression with different swing speeds and explain that there's very little difference. I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I do notice the difference all the same. Also, pictures only allow for subjective comparison and for the most part the reader (I include myself) is uneducated as to how much is enough compression, so those minute differences may make all the difference in the world.

 

In the end, both Titleist and Bridgestone have different marketing angles and are in head to head competition. Titleist has the crown jewel of balls on tour and they don't want to mess with a good thing. Bridgestone, OTH, competes by offering an alternative to amateurs. Both companies offer plausible explanations without enough details to really discern which one is right.

 

As Rev said, there's always the COR limit to butt up against, but from what I've read, it sounds like balls reach the COR limit only when hit optimally. I'm not sure how far off from the limit they are with non-optimal swings and couldn't find that sort of result anywhere.

[Kanoito]

I asked a similar question a while back.

 

http://forum.mygolfspy.com/topic/4343-ball-compression-chart/

 

FYI there is a chart with different ball compressions. Take a look for yourself and see if feel really feels what it's supposed to be.

 

I personally tried the balls my wife plays and they felt spongy (like RR mentioned) and I lost distance with them.

[dru_]

I think if you asked 100 golfers, you'd get 75 different opinions and experiences. The science supports that compression at impact and rebound speed from the compression absolutely have an impact on distance, rotation and flight path. The science assumes a consistent swing and contact with a fairly high level of precision.

 

Therein lies the problem with selecting golf ball based upon driver distance.

 

Most active golfers take less than 50 swings a year in a launch monitor that can accurately judge the numbers that are needed to accurately judge optimal ball choices. Think about how many people you play with that claim a 280+ average drive, and 100+ mph swing speed, but when you play with them, it's more like 240 & 90 max? These same folks are playing B-330's, Pro V1, Penta 5's or Z-Stars, not because it is the right ball for them, but because even when they choose to get 'fit' for a ball, unless they get into a launch monitor with their clubs to get a realistic average set of numbers, their ego simply won't allow them to be honest (or vice-versa, they are too honest and estimate well below accurate numbers) and end up with a product ill suited to their game.

 

I personally find myself in a bit of a no man's land in this conversation. My estimates of my swing when I recently went shopping for a new driver was average of 240yds, swing speed maxing at 95mph ( I use a short backswing due to old shoulder damage ). Based upon those assumptions, I had also been playing with whatever "distance" ball was cheap. Getting in a couple of launch monitors (Edwin Wattts, PGA Super Store and a Ping nFlite center), first with my own clubs, then with a bunch of new options, I discovered that what I thought I knew and what the launch monitors indicated to be very different, and that led to trying a different set of ball options (which I am still working through, but I think I have found my answer for this season). The launch monitors showed me closer to 260-270 at 103-108mph (and off the driver at least, a fairly low 2800-3100 spin).

 

Basically, the puts me in the grey area between the intermediate cost balls and the 'pro' balls. The conundrum then becomes the cost versus value prospect. balancing compression versus short game control, and statements like designed for higher swing speeds (typically >105).

 

The science would say that if you consistently swing above the 105 mark on the driver you are better with the higher compression ball assuming 4-10 yards off the tee is going to consistently shave a stroke per round off your game. The problem with the science is when that added distance comes at a cost of control around the greens. This is where the optimizing comes into play, and why so many of the 'tour' level balls have 'S' variants that are softer feel / better touch around the greens. Can you give up driver distance for increased touch for better scores?

 

The statistics of both pro and recreational players pretty firmly states that yes, distance off the tee is important, but 10 yards isn't enough to make up a stroke per round. Look at the game objectively, discarding the ego stroking that being the long baller in the group is and focus not on the drive but the round scores. How many holes do you play in a round where the 'smart' play is 6iron to the fairway @ ~150 out versus driver to 50 yards and maybe be on the fairway ( or the bunker, or the rough, or the woods). Statistically speaking, reaching a 340 yard par 4 in two shots is going to be a higher percentage playing your irons over your driver and a wedge.

 

Keeping that in mind, I think the discussion boils down to, how much does 5-10 extra yards off of your driver benefit your game. In my case, that answer is 'not enough', so depending upon the conditions my choice of ball is Srixon Q-Star when it's over 70 degrees and Bridgestone e6 under 70.

[revkev]

Where's the science that says this? I don't see it when actual golfers and Iron Byron like devices are used to test golf balls - the difference is 10 yards between longest and shortes balls and its a fairly consistent distance gap between fast and more moderate clubhead speeds.

 

So again where is the actual science to support compression making a difference in distance? I think this was very true with older balls - you needed the compression for energy transfer - however the differing core, mantle and cover composition of newer balls assist with the energy transfer and allow all, read all, golf balls that are produced to be relatively long. In fact according to Titleist's testing and independent testing the Pro VIx is actually longer for someone swinging 85 mph than the NXT.

 

I'm not trying to be a pain here - I think people continually talk past each other on this topic by using old ball technological wisdom and applying it to new balls - they're totally different. They can't be compared other than being round and having dimples. They're different because the multiple layers impact energy transfer which is ultimately what we are concerned with if we're talking ball speed.

 

I'd like to see, actually see, test results with actual golf balls actually being hit whether by people or machines that supports the theory that ball compresion makes a difference in distance. The only numbers I've seen suggest it doesn't. So I'll try one last time - show me the numbers and then we can talk. If we're strictly going by heresay or theory I've got Frank Thomas on this one in a direct response to a question about this very topic - no matter what anyone might feel about him that is a pretty good chip to have in your back pocket - I'll take him over Bridgestone or Titleist or any other ball company that's not giving me numbers.

 

So show me the numbers to support the theory about the impact of compression - in fact I'd like to know the theory - is it that an inability to compress the ball will cause a distance loss? Is it that too soft a ball with a high clubhead speed will compress the ball too much and cause distance loss? Is distance really the most important factor anyway?

 

Every time I talk to or read stuff from golfers I read elevated opinions on the distance that they hit the ball - I hit it 240 and shoot in the mid to low 70's - since most people believe the hit it farther than I do and some actually do - don't you think they should be concerned with everything but distance? There must be a reason why a player like me who is in some cases 40 or 50 yards shorter than some of the people in this discussion has a lower handicap index. It has nothing to do with distance or whether or not we can compress the ball - it has to do with around the green - pick the ball that enables you to get it closest to the hole from 100 yards in and you'll shoot lower scores. I know that beyond a doubt.

 

That's way more important than this discussion/debate as much fun as it might be.

[GolfSpy WD]

Every time I talk to or read stuff from golfers I read elevated opinions on the distance that they hit the ball - I hit it 240 and shoot in the mid to low 70's - since most people believe the hit it farther than I do and some actually do - don't you think they should be concerned with everything but distance? There must be a reason why a player like me who is in some cases 40 or 50 yards shorter than some of the people in this discussion has a lower handicap index. It has nothing to do with distance or whether or not we can compress the ball - it has to do with around the green - pick the ball that enables you to get it closest to the hole from 100 yards in and you'll shoot lower scores. I know that beyond a doubt.

 

Totally agree with this.

 

The part I still don't get with the Titleist/Frank Thomas argument is if compression doesn't matter, what's the point of a three piece ball? Why not just have a one piece ball?

 

I've been planning on doing a ball comparison with the B300RX I won. I have a box of B330 and ProV1x and a sleeve of 20XI-S. Once I'm happier with my driver I'll compare each on the course off the driver and with my wedges. I'm playing twice a week now, so hopefully I'll get this done soon.

[dru_]

I'm not trying to be a pain here - I think people continually talk past each other on this topic by using old ball technological wisdom and applying it to new balls - they're totally different. They can't be compared other than being round and having dimples. They're different because the multiple layers impact energy transfer which is ultimately what we are concerned with if we're talking ball speed.

 

Well, the physics of the matter/energy transfer doesn't change. The reactivity quotients of the newer materials have changed, but the physics haven't, so compression is still relevant. The relative compression values from balls 10 years ago to balls today has. Multiple layers, different materials, all work out that the differences between balls from the very low end to the very high are pretty minor, no more than 5-10 yards for the same strike, staying within the rules of the game, there simply isn't enough variance to make a difference much beyond that.

 

I'd like to see, actually see, test results with actual golf balls actually being hit whether by people or machines that supports the theory that ball compresion makes a difference in distance. The only numbers I've seen suggest it doesn't. So I'll try one last time - show me the numbers and then we can talk. If we're strictly going by heresay or theory I've got Frank Thomas on this one in a direct response to a question about this very topic - no matter what anyone might feel about him that is a pretty good chip to have in your back pocket - I'll take him over Bridgestone or Titleist or any other ball company that's not giving me numbers.

 

So show me the numbers to support the theory about the impact of compression - in fact I'd like to know the theory - is it that an inability to compress the ball will cause a distance loss? Is it that too soft a ball with a high clubhead speed will compress the ball too much and cause distance loss? Is distance really the most important factor anyway?

 

The theory is that an under compressed ball will not achieve it's optimal ball flight because it doesn't absorb enough energy to maximize it's responding force (equal and opposite force), reducing launch speed, backspin and ultimately carry distance (in theory). Theory doesn't mean it translates on the course (which was part of my point above, I play a softer ball than i "should" by conscious choice, and yours, distance is a BS thing, it's a ego/genital size thing that sells balls and clubs, not a score thing). The other side of the theory is that an over compressed ball dissipates the excess energy through dispersion to the sides, and reduces the accuracy of the resulting ball flight due to non linear compression causing excess side spin and a non-linear response off the face. Think of it as a wobble. Like when you throw a frisbee too hard and it wobbles for the first 15 feet until it's rotation and speed balance out and the flight levels out (no it's not the exact same phenomena, but it's close enough for the example). The distance loss probably isn't a major factor, but if that dispersion moves the ball 10-15 yards left or right of the target, it could be (I would argue that in most cases, using a shorter club rather is the smarter play, but then I would argue that for a huge cross section of players they would be better served carrying an extra hybrid or wedge over a driver, but hey, I'm just an 18 what do I know!).

 

Every time I talk to or read stuff from golfers I read elevated opinions on the distance that they hit the ball - I hit it 240 and shoot in the mid to low 70's - since most people believe the hit it farther than I do and some actually do - don't you think they should be concerned with everything but distance? There must be a reason why a player like me who is in some cases 40 or 50 yards shorter than some of the people in this discussion has a lower handicap index. It has nothing to do with distance or whether or not we can compress the ball - it has to do with around the green - pick the ball that enables you to get it closest to the hole from 100 yards in and you'll shoot lower scores. I know that beyond a doubt.

 

That's way more important than this discussion/debate as much fun as it might be.

 

And this is where we are completely on the same page. The entire discussion of 'more distance' is pure marketing. It sells clubs and balls, but doesn't impact scores. Lower scores come from the shots under 150 yards from the hole, not the ones off the tees. I see guys all the time talking about how great they are at recovery and scrambling. They wouldn't need to be great at recovery if they'd play the appropriate clubs and balls that let them control the shots. 3i of the tee box on that par 5 you can't possibly reach in 2, just means that you have a higher chance of being in the fairway, and not hitting 2i our of the rough or blowing 5 minutes hunting in the woods. 200-210 with a 3i versus 240 with 1w. Swing the higher percentage shot and score come down. I haven't been playing but a year, but putting the ego in the locker and playing the right club has already taken my 28 of a year ago to an 18 today, trending down, and ultimately, THAT is what should sell, not "hit the ball 10 yards more!"

[dru_]

I also failed to add, that with what we have learned in aero-dynamics, dimple shape, count, depth, patterns all play into the flight patterns every bit as much as compression does, but because on course conditions vary so wildly from hole to hole, much less round to round or course to course, that the wind tunnel testing of golf balls have effectively removed many of the characteristics of ball flight that compression variances create.

 

The long and short is that you have to pick the tool the plays to yours strengths and more importantly gets into the cup in the least amount of strokes. How far you bang it with any particular club simply isn't relevant in the context of scoring lower.

[Flv02]

I want to butt into the conversation right now to thank-you all for your input. It has been of great help to me. I also want to take the time now to tell you guys that losing distance is not a big deal to me. I know 150 in is where I can score better, so thats what I am looking for. I need a ball that WONT roll past the hole EVERY time. I just want dont want to sacrifice accuracy off the tee to do it. I will take a 10 yard drop in distance as long as it goes in the fairway when I hit it well.

[apprenti23]

We have a titleist ball fitting at my facility next Wednesday. Not only will I see what they say, but I'll get on the trackman and rifle through some balls so we have some data- last time I was on one my bs was plenty high to "over compress " some balls so we'll see.

[dru_]

We have a titleist ball fitting at my facility next Wednesday. Not only will I see what they say, but I'll get on the trackman and rifle through some balls so we have some data- last time I was on one my bs was plenty high to "over compress " some balls so we'll see.

 

My experience with these "ball fittings" has always been that regardless of the swing profiles, the end result is almost always 'the most expensive/profitable ball offering', meaning that >90% of the 'recommendations" will br Pro-V1x(s), with a handful of NXT-Tour(s).

[Flv02]

Every night, once a night, I go on eBay under the general golf section and look at the 400 auctions ending the soonest and the 400 buy-it-nows newly listed. I usually find good deals that way. Anyway, what I am getting at is that I just did it and purchased New Callaway Tour i(s) sfor $20 with free shipping from a 100% feedback seller. I still will try the Wilson's out if I don't get anymore deals like this. Again, thanks for all of your help guys!

[revkev]

;) Sorry I bowed out on this one and other discussion for a few days - I ended up in the hospital for something that turned out to be nothing major - thank God.

 

Dru I understand and appreciate your physics lessons - I'm not a phycisist - you said what I was trying to but couldn't because I don't know the right terms - the multiple cores, mantles, covers, dimple patterns or now apparently non-dimple patterns, etc. have negated the simpler compression numbers we once had because they ultimately have their impact on the way in which energy is transfered and balls fly - that's where I'm going here - I don't think the compression number matters that much any more - just take the balls you are considering balling and try them out on the course.

 

Thomas would argue that for 90 percent of golfers it really doesn't matter what ball is being used, two piece or three pice - they all will perform about the same. Under 10 percent is around an 8 handicap index. Titleist of course wants to say that everyone should use a Pro VI or Ix - For the longest time I've bought their argument however in reading what some of our mid to higher handicappers have written I'm beginning to think I'm wrong on that assesment - middle level balls work just fine for any golfer who doesn't know how to use increased spin around the green - that really should be the determining factor - if you know how to control the ball around the green through spin rather than trajectory you should use a proline ball - if you can't - stay away or better yet take lessons to learn how to control the ball around the green by using spin (much better results than just using trajectory).

 

Hopefully though we've got the focus on where it needs to be - on scoring - worry about which ball makes it easier for you to score. What strategy makes it easier to score - it's a golf course - that term implies figuring out a strategy to complete it in the fewest strokes possible. By the way since my health event occured while playing I figured out a great way to lower my score. For a while there I was thinking, "At least I birdied my last hole."

[dru_]

;) Sorry I bowed out on this one and other discussion for a few days - I ended up in the hospital for something that turned out to be nothing major - thank God.)

 

Glad to have you back healthy.. Take care of yourself.

[Flv02]

;) Sorry I bowed out on this one and other discussion for a few days - I ended up in the hospital for something that turned out to be nothing major - thank God.

 

Glad you are okay. Hope you stay healthy! Can you go to the course right away or do you have to wait a couple of weeks?

[revkev]

Thanks guys - I can putt and chip tomorrow and good to go for all activities on Monday - my test was clean so I'm good to go once the slice in my groin heals up - think it is because it itches like you know what.

 

I'm playing on Tuesday so I'll hit the green tomorrow afternoon (not allowed to preach tomorrow morning), do the Father's day thing mid-afternoon and then do what everyone else here is doing - watching the Open - love these prime time tournaments - the Open should be on the West Coast every year.