Golf Ball Hitting Steel at 150 mph

Status
Not open for further replies.
JB, correct me if I'm wrong here.

My swingspeed should be enough to compress most amateur level balls, but I wasn't compressing the e5 (which I should not have a problem compressing) as good as the e6. My theory is that since I was also putting lots of sidespin on the ball (due to an out-to-in path), I was getting sort of a glancing blow on the ball. That would a good example of why you can't rely on compression alone.
 
JB, correct me if I'm wrong here.

My swingspeed should be enough to compress most amateur level balls, but I wasn't compressing the e5 (which I should not have a problem compressing) as good as the e6. My theory is that since I was also putting lots of sidespin on the ball (due to an out-to-in path), I was getting sort of a glancing blow on the ball. That would a good example of why you can't rely on compression alone.

Absolutely. Compression alone is not a good measurement.
 
When was the last time anyone saw a ball that actually announced the compression on it? Certainly the Pentas don't and the Pro V1s don't. It used to be with the wound balls you would get the Titleist Tour in either 90 or 100 compression. I thought they'd done away with compressions when they went to the solid core balls?
 
When was the last time anyone saw a ball that actually announced the compression on it? Certainly the Pentas don't and the Pro V1s don't. It used to be with the wound balls you would get the Titleist Tour in either 90 or 100 compression. I thought they'd done away with compressions when they went to the solid core balls?
The 'announcement' was somewhat unconventional, but about 2 years ago :wilsonstaff: marketed the fifty and zip balls, with fifty and zero compression ratings respectively.
 
When was the last time anyone saw a ball that actually announced the compression on it? Certainly the Pentas don't and the Pro V1s don't. It used to be with the wound balls you would get the Titleist Tour in either 90 or 100 compression. I thought they'd done away with compressions when they went to the solid core balls?

Haven't seen one for years. However, the soft Titleist balls used to have a red number on the 90s and black on the 100s................like the ProV1 / 1x do now.
 
that video is crazy!
 
When was the last time anyone saw a ball that actually announced the compression on it? Certainly the Pentas don't and the Pro V1s don't. It used to be with the wound balls you would get the Titleist Tour in either 90 or 100 compression. I thought they'd done away with compressions when they went to the solid core balls?

They marked the compression on those old wound balata balls because the design and manufacturing process carried a degree of uncertainty with it. They didn't really know just what the compression was going to be until they were tested, then they were marked for either 100 or 90 (80 or below was a "senior" or "women's" ball). They could actually be anywhere from somewhat over 100 to about 95 for a "100 compression" and from 94 down to about 85 for a "90". That tells you that winding a long rubber band around a solid core is a fairly inexact process. :rolleyes:
 
Think about it as well guys, it is hitting a steel plate in a dead stopped position, this is never going to happen on the golf course because obviously there are no steel plates on the golf course. Your ball will never hit something dead solid like that.
 
Think about it as well guys, it is hitting a steel plate in a dead stopped position, this is never going to happen on the golf course because obviously there are no steel plates on the golf course. Your ball will never hit something dead solid like that.

Idk dent... I hit PLENTY of trees head on :)
 
Think about it as well guys, it is hitting a steel plate in a dead stopped position, this is never going to happen on the golf course because obviously there are no steel plates on the golf course. Your ball will never hit something dead solid like that.

Maybe not on the typical course, but there are solid granite tee signs on many courses which would be just as hard and unmoving as any steel plate... probably more so.

The OP's video is faked and that all there is to it. A golf ball can't do what that think is doing.
 
How do you know that it is fake?
 
Its not fake. Some just like to disagree with everyone for the heck of it.
 
How do you know that it is fake?

Because it's impossible for a ball to do that. If you look for it there is a video somewhere on youtube of a real golf ball hitting a steel plate at 150 mph and it looks nothing like that. A real ball will literally explode right out of its cover if squeezed down that flat. A golf ball does not flex like a blob of Jello. You can't really believe that's a real video????

Heres the real one: [video=youtube;XJycozid-wY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJycozid-wY[/video]

or a ball coming off a driver:
[video=youtube;iUzr-4W3imw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUzr-4W3imw[/video]
 
the only stat that I think could be wrong about the original video is the ball speed. I totaly think this could be legit, especially as gummy soft golf ball covers can be nowadays but idk about it being at 150mph...? meh.
 
the only stat that I think could be wrong about the original video is the ball speed. I totaly think this could be legit, especially as gummy soft golf ball covers can be nowadays but idk about it being at 150mph...? meh.

I don't know who or where, but a test was made by putting a ball in a hydraulic press.... long before the ball deformed that much it just blew apart. I can't believe how many actually believe that malarkey.... the materials that the ball is made from simply aren't that fluid, no matter how hard you hit it or how much pressure it's put under. You would have trouble finding ANY rubber ball that would look like that. Look at the OP's video, then look at the slow motion of a water drop hitting the surface of a pond. See any resemblance? Don't we have any chemical engineers or physicists here?

Here's just one... wouldn't be hard for a good video editor to fake a golf ball doing something similar to this:

 
I don't know who or where, but a test was made by putting a ball in a hydraulic press.... long before the ball deformed that much it just blew apart. I can't believe how many actually believe that malarkey.... the materials that the ball is made from simply aren't that fluid, no matter how hard you hit it or how much pressure it's put under. You would have trouble finding ANY rubber ball that would look like that. Look at the OP's video, then look at the slow motion of a water drop hitting the surface of a pond. See any resemblance? Don't we have any chemical engineers or physicists here?

Here's just one... wouldn't be hard for a good video editor to fake a golf ball doing something similar to this:

And what would the purpose of that be?

I spoke to a golf ball person (R&D at major company) today that begs to differ with you. I asked him about the ball in the press video and he said dual pressure is a different animal. He believes this is real. He said that in video testing off of steel sheets they see deformation at far less MPHs. He also said that "speed this up it would look normal and in real time normal to the naked eye, but he believes this is 100% real."

Fourputt,
He also very much disputed the idea that the materials in golf balls are not fluid enough to have this happen.
 
I wonder if the fookinglong ball would just hit and drop lol

It would probably slice through the metal with its ninja abilities. Master Foo stops for no inanimite object.
 
I don't know who or where, but a test was made by putting a ball in a hydraulic press....

They hydralic press video has been posted in this thread. The important thing to note about the hydralic press is that the ball muffintops around the edge of the press, but compresses much in the same manner as the video in question. The reason the ball breaks apart is the edge of the hydralic press, after a certian point, starts cutting into the cover of the ball stripping it of its mechanical integrity.

If you pay attention only to the ball deformation, you will see that that it is very similar to OPs video
 
...Look at the OP's video, then look at the slow motion of a water drop hitting the surface of a pond. See any resemblance? Don't we have any chemical engineers or physicists here?

Here's just one... wouldn't be hard for a good video editor to fake a golf ball doing something similar...


Exactly what I was thinking.

But if you still don't believe it's fake, take a good look at the ball both before it strikes the steel and then after it has finished "flubbering". If you note the angle of the rows of dimples (about 10 degrees to the left) before the impact, the dimples remain at exactly the same angle after all of the deformations are finished.

There is simply no way that a golf ball could strike a surface so symmetrically and then endure all of those asymmetric distortions during its rebound and not rotate even one degree - especially after having been compressed to a thickness of what appears to be perhaps less than ten percent of its original width.

Plus, if you break it down frame by frame, there is a sort of "melting" effect seen as the ball first strikes the steel which is not only unnatural but is also distinctly similar to the shape and behavior of the water drop.

Lastly, all of the shadows appear to be very sharp throughout but when the ball deforms, there are moments when the shadow becomes lighter and its edges softer. Shadows do not change like this. Even through the distortions, the shadow should still remain the same in terms of sharpness and intensity.

My guess is that someone took a video of an actual golf ball being tested in such a way and they removed the original ball and substituted their own images based on a water drop (or something similar). They did their best to keep all of the reflections and shadows as nearly perfect as they could, but they missed on a few spots.

It's a pretty good fake, but a fake nonetheless.


-JP
 
And what would the purpose of that be?

I spoke to a golf ball person (R&D at major company) today that begs to differ with you. I asked him about the ball in the press video and he said dual pressure is a different animal. He believes this is real. He said that in video testing off of steel sheets they see deformation at far less MPHs. He also said that "speed this up it would look normal and in real time normal to the naked eye, but he believes this is 100% real."

Fourputt,
He also very much disputed the idea that the materials in golf balls are not fluid enough to have this happen.

Hi JB,

I'd very much like to hear your golf ball person's opinion about this:



Pause it at 50 seconds. This is a picture of the ball just a tiny fraction after impact. It's Tiger Woods, so he's swinging it at somewhere in the low-mid 120s mph I think (the swingvision thing claims a 139mph clubhead speed unless I'm misreading, but I don't believe that's right). Look at how round the ball is. There is absolutely none of that continued oscillation that you see on the other video. Granted that's at a faster speed, but there's quite a lot of give in that steel plate so other than the speed they should be consistent. I personally find it quite hard to believe that 25 odd mph makes the difference between a perfectly round ball just after impact versus the egg-shaped thing on that video.

Couple of other questions for your golf ball person:

1) Does he think that's a standard golf ball or is there something funny about it?
2) How efficient does he think that impact is going to be with the ball flexing around like that and wasting energy at the same time?

Basically I guess it comes down to do I believe a golf ball could do that? Possibly. Do I believe it could do it at 150mph? No.
 
And what would the purpose of that be?


They will post just about anything on the web just to get fools to believe it. Haven't you figured that out by now???? It's the only way they've found to feel superior to normal people.

I spoke to a golf ball person (R&D at major company) today that begs to differ with you. I asked him about the ball in the press video and he said dual pressure is a different animal. He believes this is real. He said that in video testing off of steel sheets they see deformation at far less MPHs. He also said that "speed this up it would look normal and in real time normal to the naked eye, but he believes this is 100% real."

Fourputt,
He also very much disputed the idea that the materials in golf balls are not fluid enough to have this happen.

Then how do you justify that compared with the other 2 videos I posted???????????

A "golf ball person'? What 's a "golf ball person"? Sure sounds like an "expert" to me!

Believe it if you like... it's pure horsefeathers but y'all can believe the fantasy if you want. If you think that the difference between a club hitting a ball at 120+ and a ball hitting a steel plate at 150 is that dramatic, then go for it. I'm sure that there's still swampland for sale in Florida too. I believe the testimony in the 2 videos I posted, and no amount of so called "expert" testimony is going to convince me that there can be that dramatic a difference with an increase of 30mph. Guess I'll just have to have the Mythbusters check this one out.

JB, you seem to get a special joy out of contradicting anything I post, and it's starting to get old. This place was kind of fun when I first joined, but it's gone downhill lately. You seem to have the dominate clique here convinced that your opinions are always more right than anyone else's because you have this mythical aura of expertise, justified or not. Or maybe I just don't count for as much because I don't participate in your contests and giveaways, but that's not why I spend time on the forum. I'm probably not going to be around as much as I have been... at least not to post any contradictory opinions. There are plenty of other places to visit. :confused2:

I expect that last paragraph to be deleted, but I felt I had to put it in there anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
Hmmm. I am speaking with him again on Monday and would gladly pass on your questions. But I think I am seeing something different than you are in that video. I see the ball quite compressed and not round at the exact impact. And yes TW is no where near 139. In fact closer to 120 than 140.

He gave his opinion that he thought it was real. But I will gladly ask him the followup questions when we speak.

Maybe we need to have him on the radio show again to discuss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top