Does the ball impact the game?

[dru_]

For the record, until the last month, I would have argued, probably loudly, that the ball has a minimal impact on a given round of golf, and that there was no reason to spend on better balls for high handicap golfers. That opinion has changed. I will get into the why and how in a moment.

 

As most of you know from my prior postings, I am not a very good player. I have spent most of the last 2.5 years fiddling with swing mechanics, equipment, and the mental approach to the game. That fiddling has resulted in a slow and steady progression from a high 20's guy to an index of ~17.

 

Over that time I played with all kinds of balls, and while I found some I liked better than others, I never really felt that the ball contributed materially to my scoring, or lack thereof.

 

Money is always an issue with me, even when I can afford better, I pinch pennies, it is just ingrained from life I guess, so the idea of spending upwards of $40/dozen always was a struggle. So I found myself purchasing balls in the $20/dozen ranges and occasionally splurging when better stuff was on discounted.

 

Over this time I tried pretty much every product out there. Srixon, Bridgestone, Callaway, Nike. Both mid-line and highline products. I even tried some of the less known brands, like the MG Golf. While I could feel a difference in various aspects of the game with each ball, I never got the sense that a ball could shave strokes off the round.

 

I was wrong. Very wrong.

 

As summer wound down, I decided to just pick a ball and stick with it. The choice was the Titleist NXT Tour S. I felt it was a good compromise ball, relatively cheap, the pro-shop at my home course stocked it, it played to a distance that I was in the grouping with the long hitters I play with (though well left or right most of the time), and it felt alright off the putter.

 

Then in December, I was lucky enough to be selected for the Taylormade Project 5 test group here ( that write up is now done and will be published shortly ). As we now know, the Project 5 ball became the Taylormade Lethal, and is the replacement for the Penta TP5.

 

Testing a ball like this for me meant going at this with a method. I played 6 rounds of golf (with the blessing of the pro-shop I should add), with 4 balls in play in each round. I kept a separate score for each ball in the round playing each ball in a different order off each tee. In all 5 rounds, I used my NXT Tour S as my baseline ball. For the first 3 rounds, I also used a Pro-V1x, and a Srixon Z-Star. At that point I replaced the Pro-V1x with a Bridgestone B-330s. for the 4th and 5th rounds, I replaced the Srixon with a current model Penta TP5.

 

The results were startling. Including clear trends in the impact fatigue can have on play :-)

 

The first thing about the analysis was that the NXT scores were pretty much spot on for my handicap and historical rounds. Using that as a baseline, the 'pro' line balls were all averaging about .3 strokes better per hole. Yes, I mean that the scores across the board were and average of 3 strokes better per round than my play with the NXTs. Interestingly, for me, the Pro V1x was the worst of the Pro balls for me, at just a single stroke average. The Srixon faired better, at 2.9, while the Bridgestone was just under 2.

 

Here is where things got interesting. The Project 5 was way better for me early in rounds, with an advantage of as much a 6 strokes on the front 9, but falling way off to a mere 1 stroke on the back. This wasn't unusual, in that I found that trend across the board, but nothing else was this pronounced.

 

The answer was fatigue, and the numbers bear this out. Playing that many swings in a round, (nearly 400 strokes per round), I was tired, and simply got sloppy. Less compression, less distance, less accuracy.

 

Which leads me to the TP5. The TP5 is a very good ball, and how it has gotten lost in the Titleist dominance is a shame and the Project 5 / Lethal is an incremental improvement over this ball. The TP5 played side by side with the Lethal proved that they are far closer in performance than I expected after those first to rounds, but the Project 5 / Lethal does have some advantages.

 

The discovery to me was something that I mentioned in passing in another thread. The Taylormade TP5 and the Lethal both suffer from being too good at multi-tasking. The great spin that these balls get in the partial swing approach shots means that if you don't fully compress them off the tee, they can and will side spin. This becomes particularly evident as you get tired, and the fairways seem to get narrower as you hit fewer of them, and don't go nearly as far. This, to me at least, explains some of the early comments about both the TP5 and the Lethal. It seems that there are a good number of folks not getting the compression and seeing the side spin off the tee.

 

So, fast forward to January. I had to take about 3 weeks off from golf due to an illness and then a marathon I had to run, and I finally got a chance to get back out to play. Wednesday afternoon, I went out and played using the last of my NXT's and shot a touch over my handicap, with all the same issues I always have. I had been off for a couple of weeks though, so no biggie. However, I got back out Friday, and started the round with the last NXT in the bag. A water hazard swallowed that about hole 5, and I switched to the last Project 5 I had in the bag. Finishing the round, the back score was noticeably better than that first 5.

 

Monday however, I was back out. This time it was a TP5 from the 1st tee all the way through the round. The result? a 6 stroke under my 18 handicap 82. Lunch and headed home when my father calls and wants to play a round with my niece. Far be it for me to decline that, so turn around and meet them at the course for a second round on Monday. Another round with the TP5, and the result? a 9 under my handicap 79.

 

So where are these strokes coming from?

 

Off the tee, I am seeing improved accuracy when I am not fatigued. So long as I get through the ball it is longer than the NXT, but far m ore important, less prone to wicked hooks or slices. A 3-5 yard draw is the new norm, but that is not where the strokes are coming from. The strokes are coming from the 110-25 ysrd marks. The non-Pro level balls simply do not get the grab on the green that the pro level balls do, and the TP5 & Lethal seem to exemplify this. It has changed strategy and the 'what I play' choices. Particularly with the NXT I frequently would play a stroke to land s much as 5 yards short of a target, knowing that it would have to roll out. Pro level balls will stop on greens in decent condition. The TP5 and the Lethal, well, let's just say that it is a lot more like throwing lawn darts. Get them up in the air with a partial wedge, or even mid iron, and you have a good shot of it spinning to a rest where you want it to. That level of control is what makes the difference, and has changed my mind.

 

Yes, the ball impacts the game. If you are on the fence about playing a pro level ball, I urge you to give them a serious try. The difference is noticeable, tangible and well worth the time and effort. (I should note that the TP5's are starting to be discounted pretty steeply, so now would be a good time to stock up for the spring!)

[Wannabegolfer67]

dru, thanks for the write-up..pretty interesting stuff and as a high-handicapper I am always looking for ANYTHING to shave even a couple of strokes.

 

By the way I see you are in Milton, GA...I am in the Southern end of the state, maybe we could meet up around the Macon area some time and find somewhere to get in a round.

 

Maybe could even find some others and have a GA MGS get together.

[whiskey golf]

Nice research, that must've been a lot to do. It's pretty cool to see all the different factors of the golf balls and how they affected scores.

[RoverRick]

Great thread. I love it when someone does research like this.

 

I have done similar research with golf balls and also found that the Pro V1x gets me three strokes lower per round. Actually, at the time I did it, the Nike Platinum were the best for me. However, they are no longer availible so the Pro V1x works. Also, the Penta is right there also. I sort of swap back and forth between the Penta and Pro V1x, which ever one I can get for the best deal.

[Rickles]

Does anyone remember when all of the three piece urethane cover golf balls first came out? It was a game changer. Before that time you either played a titleist tour professional (lots of spin, great around greens, but short and crooked off the tee) or some kind of distance ball (longer, straighter, but you better not have to stop it. I remember in high school I started playing the strata tour professional. It was the best of both worlds, very similar to the original pro v1. All my low handicap ball snob friends wouldn't play them because they said top flight and they were idiots. I felt like I had a little secret because I was like two clubs longer and could still stop it around the greens. I beat everyone's brains out until titleist put out the pro v and then everyone had it. Its what created the modern game of bomb and gauge and made the old courses obsolete.

[Paul S]

Great post! I'd love to see what your raw data looks like. Actually, maybe I'll just do some of my own. I love Srixon Z-Stars, though I got a box of Wilson Staff Duos at the end of last season that felt really great. I'd love to try the FG Tours now.

 

I have a lot of respect for the level of research that it seems you've done.

 

Paul

[RoverRick]

Our number 18 is an island green. All our greens are like a tennis court. Hard and fast. I usually have no trouble stopping the ball on the greens but 18 is an island that is about 10 feet higher than the fairway. You can not really tell this from the fairway but if you look from across the lake you see this. I have decided that anything more than an 8 iron, I will lay up and try to get up and down for par. Today, I had to lay up and got lucky and pitched it into the hole. I used a Pro V1x and a 64* wedge and 75% shot so it had a lot of spin. Another guy thought he was out of the hole and he hit a 3 wood at the green. It hit one side rolled all the way across and around the green and it rolled forever and eventually stopped near the flag. That ball had to roll 75 feet but it was all the way around the green.

 

The reason for this story is that afterwards we were drinking our beer bought by the guy who made a hole in one on number 9, and one guy brought up the Pentas and how good they were. I said that I loved the Pentas also but that was a Pro V1x that sucked back to the hole on 17 (a foot from the hole) and 18 (in the hole). Ken said, "I put a little cut spin on this Top Flight with the 3 wood and stopped this one near the hole.

 

Maybe you had to be there but it was so darned funny. He finally admitted that his plan was to bounce off the back of the green and drop 3 putt 4 and hope for a 5. From his position he said he could not aim at the fairway to lay up because there were some boulders in the way.

[dru_]

The reason for this story is that afterwards we were drinking our beer bought by the guy who made a hole in one on number 9, and one guy brought up the Pentas and how good they were. I said that I loved the Pentas also but that was a Pro V1x that sucked back to the hole on 17 (a foot from the hole) and 18 (in the hole). Ken said, "I put a little cut spin on this Top Flight with the 3 wood and stopped this one near the hole.

 

Maybe you had to be there but it was so darned funny. He finally admitted that his plan was to bounce off the back of the green and drop 3 putt 4 and hope for a 5. From his position he said he could not aim at the fairway to lay up because there were some boulders in the way.

 

That is seriously funny, doubly so to me. I used to really try to 'work' the ball with balls like the E5/E6, the NXT and even the Q-Star, and while I would on occasion see a result, that simply isn't what those balls are for. Once you play a pro level ball for more than a round or two, you really see the difference.

 

For example, there is one hole on my home course that is a 90 degree dog leg left at about 240 from the back tee box. Dense pine trees to the left, many over 80 feet tall. The safe play is to go 3i or hybrid to about 250, then get up and down from about 90-110 yards out depending upon how far left to right you played your tee shot. This is fine, but the green slopes back towards you and if you come up short, you'll be 20 feet below the green in deep rough, with a nasty pitch up.

 

If I'm playing for score, I'll play it low risk. But if I'm in a game that favors low hole score, like skins, I'll frequently go high risk high reward. In the past I'd grab whatever crappy distance ball I had tucked in the bag and go driver, played for a draw over the trees. It was a low percentage shot at best. 10-15%, but I had taken home a few skins on that shot for 3/2 and even 2/1 on a par 4, but it was mostly a lucky shot, not much skill involved.

 

Though I haven't tried it yet with one of the Lethal or Pentas, I feel pretty confident that the odds of being where I want to be with that are far better. The only risk is that I get a lower launch with them so I would need to adjust a little for that, but I know without a doubt that I can get the 10 yard draw I need to make this a 20-30% shot now. Fortunately, I tend to avoid the skins games because honestly, I think they are bad for the game at a general level. They encourage too much 'garbage' play, where you throw away shots making bogey or worse in a round trying to make birdies to win the skin on the hole. It pushes handicaps up, and creates an inequity when it comes time to play for a round score with handicaps in play.

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

Played a few rounds with multiple balls last year -- ProV1x vs Wilson Due vs Wilson Elite 50. Found minimal distance differences off the tee - most likely a reflection on the hitter, not the hitter. As you'd expect, biggest differences were 100 yards and in, where the Wilson's would either hop 'n stop or roll out a bit -- not so much with the ProV. The one thing it taught me was that more often than not, I needed 1 more club

[Blade]

I hit two balls off the tee today to compare. Srixon Z Star and Callaway Hex Black. Every drive was longer and straight with the Callaway and shorter with a fade with the Z Star. Two 150 par 3s, the Hex went right at 150 with an 8i and the Z Star was a good 6 or 8 yards shorter. The second of those I dropped the Hex dead center of the green and it hopped out maybe 2 inches from the pitch mark. The Z Star was on the exact same line and felt just as solid as the first shot, but was about 8 yards short, barely on the front of the green, hopped about 18 inches from it's mark. The only "bad" drive I made with the Hex was on the last hole. The wind had kicked up pretty strong from the left. I aimed down the left side of the FW planning on a low fade that would ride the wind a bit compared to a draw fighting it. I blocked it a bit and hit it way higher than I meant to. It got above the trees and the wind pushed it into the next fairway. GPS still said it was 277 yds, my second longest of the day. I had a good shot to the green too, so it didn't hurt me. I did hit a Pro V1X after that for kicks. It went dead straight, center of fairway although a bit shorter than the Hex. I know I put a better swing on it. I was surprised it didn't go longer. I like the yellow I can get in the Z Stars. But I'm liking that Hex better, white or not. I'll try the same thing next with a B-330S. I have a couple dozen of the 330s. I haven't used them with my new driver yet. I'll see how they compare.

[revkev]

This is always a topic of interest for me in fact Dru and I have gone at it on this one before.

 

I'm curious about something here - why do you suppose you hit wilder hooks with the NXT than with the Proline balls.

 

I have a theory but am wondering about your take. You show me yours and I'll show you mine kind of thing.

 

I really like the Penta TP5 as a ball but I was shocked last week when I was spinning the you know what out of the Nike thinga magingies - I haven't spun a ball back like that since the days of the old titleist balata 90's.

[JMiller]

Here is an interesting page on golf ball compression and cover hardness:

 

 

I am not one to get into the debate on if people should be fit to lower compression balls, it's pretty clear everyone besides Titleist thinks it is a good idea at least from a marketing stand point

 

If you give a guy with slow to average swing speed a 90 to 110 compression ball, they would only activate the outer layers designed for irons and wedges, which in return most likely not give max distance of the tee and probably create slightly more spin (I don't have proof of such just a thought)

[dru_]

This is always a topic of interest for me in fact Dru and I have gone at it on this one before.

 

I'm curious about something here - why do you suppose you hit wilder hooks with the NXT than with the Proline balls.

 

I have a theory but am wondering about your take. You show me yours and I'll show you mine kind of thing.

 

I really like the Penta TP5 as a ball but I was shocked last week when I was spinning the you know what out of the Nike thinga magingies - I haven't spun a ball back like that since the days of the old titleist balata 90's.

 

I wish I had some smart theory as to why I hook the NXT. I don't. And I the pro at my home course is equally baffled, in that the flight path is something that makes very little sense, it launches straight, and turns pretty hard once it starts climbing and the turn accelerates near the apex of the vertical arc.

 

Our best guess is that because of the shorter, slightly inside out swing plane that I use to accommodate a damaged right shoulder I'm doing something at impact that does this. What is baffling is that I don't seem to have the same behavior with the higher end balls, though I do produce the same basic effect with the Q-Star and the e5.

[GolfSpy WD]

Exactly what JM said. At least on paper, a 3 piece hard compression ball is the same as a 2 piece ball unless you have the swing speed for it.

 

Now, the argument by Titleist could be that all you need is a 2 piece ball, but you can definitely get that for cheaper. The e5 comes to mind with it's 2 piece, but urethane cover. TM also just came out with the Rocketballz Urethane which I *think* is a two piece ball, or at least is low compression.

[JMiller]

I also dug this up at Golf Galaxy, it gives the "Performance", "Cover Material', "Distance/Spin", "Swing Speed" in simple terms >> http://www.golfgalaxy.com/golf_ball_comparison_chart.aspx

[revkev]

Actually I think Taylor Made is with Titleist on this one - it's basically Taylor Made/Titleist vs. Srixon/Bridgestone - I've yet to hear any of the other companies do or say anything other than to just market their balls.

 

Regardless the tests I've seen with real golfers often show that the non-tour balls are designed to launch higher and I suspect that this requires a bit more spin. I'm rarely if ever longer with a company's mid-line ball off the driver than I am with their top of the line ball - in fact I'm normally longer with the top of the line ball, off the tee, mainly because it's not spinning as much and rolls out better for me. Additional spin when turning the wrong way on the axis means more shots in the rough, trap, woods, water - I think Srixon is dead wrong in its marketing claims in that the ball it claims produces more spin off the driver doesn't - at least not for me and apparently not for Dru either.

 

I am always longer with those cheaper two piece thingies by the way.

 

I will continually believe that so long as you have the game to keep the ball in play off the tee and around the green on the approach it's about which ball performs best for you around the green not about which one goes farthest (given a 10 yard or fewer spread - if we're talking much more than that it's another matter altogether.)

 

In short the real golfer tests - at least for this real golfer show that I'll hit a Pro VIx farther than an NXT tour - 3 or 4 yards or a Nike One Tour D or its replacement farther than a Vapor by a few yards as well - I haven't personally tested every brand's pro line and midline ball but it's always what I find when I do.

 

Titelist has data that shows the same thing for many swing speeds and swing types.

[RoverRick]

This is always a topic of interest for me in fact Dru and I have gone at it on this one before.

 

I'm curious about something here - why do you suppose you hit wilder hooks with the NXT than with the Proline balls.

 

I have a theory but am wondering about your take. You show me yours and I'll show you mine kind of thing.

 

I really like the Penta TP5 as a ball but I was shocked last week when I was spinning the you know what out of the Nike thinga magingies - I haven't spun a ball back like that since the days of the old titleist balata 90's.

 

The answer is simple. A NXT and many other balls spin more off of full iron shots because that spin is generated by compressing the ball. On partial shots the spin is generated by the interaction between the grooves and the cover so a proline ball, urethane covered ball, will spin more.

[dru_]

All I know is that I can hook an NXT or Q-Star with a full compression swing off anything under a 7 iron.

[revkev]

The answer is simple. A NXT and many other balls spin more off of full iron shots because that spin is generated by compressing the ball. On partial shots the spin is generated by the interaction between the grooves and the cover so a proline ball, urethane covered ball, will spin more.

 

So bottom line is there may be a benefit to not compressing the ball as much?

 

This is an iquiring mind wants to know. It was a ball discussion thread that got me hooked on MGS last spring. I don't know why the topic intrigues me so much but it does. A light bulb went off with the ball turning on its access thing.

 

Now I'm still struggling to understand the impact of compression because there has seemingly been two competing schools of thought on it forever.

 

If I analyze my own swing its moderate (mid-90's) consistent, plus with the driver, a shade inside out - I tend to spin the ball too much with the driver and less with the middle irons - This could be why the urethane cover benefits me - I get my spin from the cover not from compressing the ball - the midline balls don't work for me because in compressing them I get way too much spin off the driver when all the while I need less. Finally they are always going to be harder to spin with part shots where compression isn't as big a factor in spin and so I loose out there.

 

On the other hand someone with a higher swing speed but not as consistent a swing path or a different swing path may well benefit from those midline balls far more than the proline ones because if he/she compresses the pro line ball and gets that sucker spinning on its axis it will curve significantly more.

 

Am I understanding this properly?

[JMiller]

Actually I think Taylor Made is with Titleist on this one - it's basically Taylor Made/Titleist vs. Srixon/Bridgestone - I've yet to hear any of the other companies do or say anything other than to just market their balls.

 

Regardless the tests I've seen with real golfers often show that the non-tour balls are designed to launch higher and I suspect that this requires a bit more spin. I'm rarely if ever longer with a company's mid-line ball off the driver than I am with their top of the line ball - in fact I'm normally longer with the top of the line ball, off the tee, mainly because it's not spinning as much and rolls out better for me. Additional spin when turning the wrong way on the axis means more shots in the rough, trap, woods, water - I think Srixon is dead wrong in its marketing claims in that the ball it claims produces more spin off the driver doesn't - at least not for me and apparently not for Dru either.

 

I am always longer with those cheaper two piece thingies by the way.

 

I will continually believe that so long as you have the game to keep the ball in play off the tee and around the green on the approach it's about which ball performs best for you around the green not about which one goes farthest (given a 10 yard or fewer spread - if we're talking much more than that it's another matter altogether.)

 

In short the real golfer tests - at least for this real golfer show that I'll hit a Pro VIx farther than an NXT tour - 3 or 4 yards or a Nike One Tour D or its replacement farther than a Vapor by a few yards as well - I haven't personally tested every brand's pro line and midline ball but it's always what I find when I do.

 

Titelist has data that shows the same thing for many swing speeds and swing types.

 

TMaG I have not seen post an official stance, I doubt they will. I think every company wants everyone to buy the $50 a dozen balls as they make the most money off them. Marketing slight of hands is a ******.

 

Titleist themselves between the NXT Tour and Prov1 lines vary in compression:

Distance in both lines

NXT Tour ~ 95 compression

Pro v1x ~ 105 compression

 

Spin in both lines

NXT Tour S ~ 85 compression

Pro v1 ~ 98 compression

 

The distance balls and spin balls don't line up at all in each model, the only one that lines up is the NXT Tour (distance) and the Pro v1 (Spin) in terms of compression. They can make these balls whatever compression they feel like, it's core materials not layers that get the job done.

 

Just some food for thought, I'm not debating either way here just tossing it out there, i feel like both sides have a lot of marketing to do with the claims.

[JBones]

On the other hand someone with a higher swing speed but not as consistent a swing path or a different swing path may well benefit from those midline balls far more than the proline ones because if he/she compresses the pro line ball and gets that sucker spinning on its axis it will curve significantly more.

 

Am I understanding this properly?

Thats my understanding as well. I game a proline ball, so that I can work the ball and get the spin around the greens. I play a midline ball during the fall/winter, simply because it's easier to lose the ball and they are cheaper. I also always have a box of Nike Distance around for scrambles; they're a solid 15yds longer off the tee than a proline ball.

[RoverRick]

So bottom line is there may be a benefit to not compressing the ball as much?

 

This is an iquiring mind wants to know. It was a ball discussion thread that got me hooked on MGS last spring. I don't know why the topic intrigues me so much but it does. A light bulb went off with the ball turning on its access thing.

 

Now I'm still struggling to understand the impact of compression because there has seemingly been two competing schools of thought on it forever.

 

If I analyze my own swing its moderate (mid-90's) consistent, plus with the driver, a shade inside out - I tend to spin the ball too much with the driver and less with the middle irons - This could be why the urethane cover benefits me - I get my spin from the cover not from compressing the ball - the midline balls don't work for me because in compressing them I get way too much spin off the driver when all the while I need less. Finally they are always going to be harder to spin with part shots where compression isn't as big a factor in spin and so I loose out there.

 

On the other hand someone with a higher swing speed but not as consistent a swing path or a different swing path may well benefit from those midline balls far more than the proline ones because if he/she compresses the pro line ball and gets that sucker spinning on its axis it will curve significantly more.

 

Am I understanding this properly?

 

I would not say that this is a benefit from not compressing the ball. The material of the balls cover does not really matter on full shots. Full shots are more effected by ball compression and thus core design. The different layers or varying densities cause different things in a ball. Each type of ball can boast different benefits. Take the Bridgestone e series.

 

e5= is the only two piece urethane covered ball on the market. It is probably the best ball "cheap" ball available. They use a core that the inside and outside are different densities. And the hardness of this ball is probably optimized for a 90 mph swing speed. So this is a two piece distance ball, but it has a urethane cover and therefore can generate more spin around the greens. Ok, I will do it. The e5 looks like it was designed to go after the NXT market from Titleist, but give similar results as the Pro V1 around the greens. If you like the NXT off the tee you will love the e5 even more.

 

e6= "Straight Distance" Bstone took a soft core ball, easy to compress, and then added an additional layer right under the cover to make it hard, and added a soft Surlyn cover to make it feel softer. Because it has a softer core it goes farther, and the mantle layer is designed to make it spin less. However, it will not spin around the greens. For some people this may be acceptable. Staying out of the woods may be better than stopping the ball on a dime. 15 more feet of putts may be better off than a penalty stroke.

 

e7= Like the other two this uses a core design with different densities to create longer drives, but it has a mantle layer designed to reduce spin like the e6 but not as much and has a different dimple pattern. Once again it has a Surlyn. The e7 core is almost twice as hard as the e6 but the mantles are different.

 

So just looking at these three balls, one can deduce that it is better to compress the ball for more distance. Spin is good to a certain degree but too much off the wrong club is bad. TMag says that there a 5 things that you want the ball to do and they addressed all 5 with the Penta. And I guess with the Lethal (Some one needs to run spell check, Anser, Razr, Lethal. Somebody buy a vowel.)

 

The engineering that goes into these golfballs is astonishing, and I barely touched on the different dimple patterns.

[RoverRick]

I was just reading what RevKev wrote. To pick the proper ball you first need to see where you are dropping the most strokes. If you are missing the green having to chip and then two putt for bogies, than you probably need a ball that will spin better around the green and then work on your short game. So that you can still miss the green and chip closer to the hole and hopefully make a putt.

 

If you are dropping shots because you can not reach the green in 2 than you need a distance ball like the e7. This in theory will get you closer to the green and you can make a nice chip and get the ball close. You do not have to spin the ball to have a good short game. If you play a mid line ball that will not spin, just recognize that this ball will roll out another 10 - 15 feet and practice accordingly. Also, since you have a ball you can not stop on a dime, aim at the fat part of the green so you will not leave yourself short sided. The reason I think we have not seen a bigger impact by the groove rule is the pros know they can not stop the ball as fast so instead of flying it to the hole they land it short and let it run out. This works great unless you have short sided yourself but honestly, 95% of the golfers can't stop the ball out of those lies anyway, including some pros.

 

If you are dropping shots because you are curving the ball into the hazards or into the surrounding neighborhoods you should look at the e6 type ball. Something that will keep the ball in play.

 

I am not a Bridgestone fan but I do like the numbering system and the fact that it is easier to understand.

[BK in TEXAS]

I also always have a box of Nike Distance around for scrambles; they're a solid 15yds longer off the tee than a proline ball.

Seriously?

[dru_]

My takeaway from what I've researched as well as what I experience is this actually fairly simple.

 

Compression is far more important than you might think, but not necessarily for the reasons we think, and there are legitimate reasons to match compression to swing. I could make an argument that independent ball fittings could well have more impact on overall scoring than driver fittings that have become commonplace. There are too many factors in the fitting for an off the cuff ball fitting like the online tools in use today to be a fair judge, and while most balls trade on either 'distance' or 'feel', at the end of the round, what we are looking for is all around playability matching our particular swings.

 

Even with my own swing, I know that if I 'back off' the driver swing, I am far more prone to an off axis spin that will turn, and this is just part of my game, and for the most part I've learned to play it.

 

However, I have concluded that it is absolutely possible to 'over compress' a ball, and introduce additional launch dynamics from an unbalanced compression, and this is where I believe the bulk of the problems come in with high speed swings and lower compression balls. I think any golfer can work with a consistent behavior, be it ball, club, swing or other. So long as it produces the same results each time, it is a non issue.

 

The problem with over compression, or in the case of poor quality balls, inconsistent cores, is that create inconsistent results. I would argue that if you are going to play this game for scores, you need to pick a ball and be consistent using it, so you get predictable results from the ball as well. If you compress an unbalanced core at or near it's limit, you will get a reaction that is itself unbalanced, resulting in spin behaviors that are not predictable.

 

Cores are part of the equation, but when you add additional layers that mitigate and modify the behavior of the core, you add balance to the compression equation, and I suspect reduce, if not eliminate the unpredictable behavior created by unbalanced strikes, while the surface materials get softer, allowing a player to gain significant control of the 'shape' of a shot through it's traction on the club face. Off a driver face this is largely a non-issue, as there is little grooving for traction, while a PW is the polar opposite (while also creating a lesser compression).

 

I'm not a physicist, or engineer, but what little real data I can find, more or less supports the idea that compression is the key element in distance, and that everything else is about controlling that distance. Add what little physics I remember from the way back machine, when compressing a round object, any imperfection in the density will result in unbalanced compression causing rotational anomalies in the resulting reaction.

[revkev]

AhhhhhGGGGGGGGGGGG

 

Just so much to consider -

 

I would imagine that a ball fitting would be beneficial if you truly could get an independent one but lets face it they always come from a company that wants to fit you into their ball. The last ball fitting I had was when I went for my TMag driver - it said what every ball fitting that I've had for the past 3 years has said and the same concluscion I've reach by testing balls for myself - I should use the Penta 5 (Lethal wasnt' out at the time.) Nike said, One Tour D, Titleist Pro VIx, Bridgestone B330 - I've had fittings from all five of those companies the past three years.

 

That's a pretty consistent result - the one outlier was about five years ago where a Titleist guy told me I should use the Pro VI but that was not a ball fitting - I was testing one of their new irons and he said I needed more spin off the iron. Of course I might have not been swinging well that day and I certainly wasn't comfortable with the iron that he had me testing.

 

However everyone of those testers with the exception of the TMag guy knew what ball I was playing beforehand and he knew my handicap index so he could guess. Since it was the Pro VI at the time I did the Nike test they were the only one to recommend away from that type ball and they didn't recommend going to a distance ball.

 

I'm very curious why RR wouldn't say the e5 ball from bridgestone as a good one to try for lots of people - everything he writes about the e7 would hold true for the e5 - perhaps the extra distance is worth the lack of spin trade off - you can have a good short game without as much spin you just have to play different shots and you'll loose some of your aresenal so you have to play for the fat of the green more frequently - I'm not sure that's all bad.

 

I really am going to pick up a sleeve of e5's and give them a spin sometime this winter/spring just to see.

 

Like the guy said to Curt Schilling what can it hurt?

[JMiller]

I actually play the Bridgestone e5, it's a great pick for a winter ball, not high in the price charts and still has great spin to it. The main reason I don't play it in the summer is both by me knowing it's a lower compression ball and that I have tried it a couple times on hot days it felt like a marshmallow off the driver face that wasn't getting the distance I was getting from the "tour" balls.

 

You would think the more you compress the ball the better, but maybe the lack of distance was from increased spin or something who knows, I haven't put it on a LM to find out why in the summer the E5 and other lower compression balls don't perform distance wise of the tee as well as the tour balls would for me personally.

[BK in TEXAS]

I really am going to pick up a sleeve of e5's and give them a spin sometime this winter/spring just to see.

I'll send ya a some of the E6's if you want to compare those too.

[revkev]

From everything I've read I'm thinking that the e6 would not be for me because I have no issue with getting the ball spining on its access and do have enough game to want to work the ball a bit from time to time but who knows - if you sent me a sleeve I'd love to try it.

 

I'm most intrigued by the difference between the e5 and the e7. On short shots around the green it would seem that the cover is the key so having a urethane cover should increase spin enough to have some green side control - But why both of those balls on the market - I get the e5, e6 but what does the e7 do in the grand scheme of things for that matter what do the RX's bring to the table other than they are supposed to be easier to compress - I find no difference between them and their big brother counterparts when I play them - I longer with the no S ones but I hit the RX or the plain old 330 the same distance and seem to get similar amounts of spin. I spin the heck out of Nike's new Pro VIx ball on full wedge shots - almost as like an old balata ball in terms of sucking it back - I still get good driver distance but it's hard as death off the putter and driver.

 

It's a bizzare thing this world of golf balls - I agree with JMiller that it's very hard to sort through all of the marketing hype - It's best to just take them out for a test drive and see what works - If I could get reasonable spin and 10 extra yards I'd switch to a midline ball but I've yet to find one that does that - I generally get the same or less distance and less spin.

[dru_]

Without question, the only way to find the right tool for the job is experience. The guessing game that is ball fitting as things stand can be nothing more than finding a selection to start with. From there, it becomes an expensive game of trial and error, until you find what fits you. Once you find it, stick with until it no longer works (and no longer works is not a bad round, but a trend of a couple of months of bad rounds traceable to ball performance).

 

This requires discipline, and bluntly spoken, that is exactly what the golf marketing companies don't want. They want you all hyped to keep buying the latest and greatest product every year.