We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Can we talk about compression?

SuperStroke
Not sure it relevant or has been talked about yet. If a ball has a lower compression then in theory slower swing speed have a greater impact on the core of the ball. Regardless of club used. Granted a driver will have a greater impact on the core for obvious reasons. Which is all fine and well. But how the ball responds to the compression is where it gets into the grey matter for me. What is the property that allows the ball to spring back to its original form? Is there any merit in thinking a ball that snaps back quicker is more likely to fly faster? For those balls that have a slower or lest drastic return to its original shape how does that effect its speed of flight. Am I lost or just over thinking this compression business.
 
lightningbolt44 said:
Chrome + or I still have a few dozen lethals left. I get similar distance with both. Pro V1x is the ball I would say I get the most distance with but it is close to the above two.
Click to expand...

Ok, so with those I agree. I wouldn't say compression probably did much regarding the distances of those, but I think it's interesting pointing out the XV is the hardest ball out of all of those.

But regarding your earlier comment, IMO, completely ignoring compression rates is doing yourself much more of a disservice than picking a ball based off compression. I would rather trust physics than just going into it thinking everything is the same. I think you should more so have kind of a threshold of what you know will work for you, and then base the rest off trial and error.

I also believe that going above your swing speed with a harder ball will have more of a chance of having a negative impact than playing a softer ball than you would be fit for.
 
JB said:
Not sure it refuted anything, but they believe it. FWIW, they are one of the only ones left going that route. Bridgestone, Callaway, Wilson, Srixon, etc have all said it matters and designed balls for that. Bridgestone is actually the only one that I have seen (so far) that is not just speaking about it, but showing it to individual golfers through fitting.
Click to expand...


This is Callaway's take just a couple years ago (~3:10):

 
Uhh Yeah. About 3 years ago.
And then they released SR and found new technology that helps show what compression can do.
Companies thought square drivers were the answer. And were for a period of time for certain segments. Doesnt mean its relevant now.
 
cbaker2882 said:
Ok, so with those I agree. I wouldn't say compression probably did much regarding the distances of those, but I think it's interesting pointing out the XV is the hardest ball out of all of those.

But regarding your earlier comment, IMO, completely ignoring compression rates is doing yourself much more of a disservice than picking a ball based off compression. I would rather trust physics than just going into it thinking everything is the same. I think you should more so have kind of a threshold of what you know will work for you, and then base the rest off trial and error.

I also believe that going above your swing speed with a harder ball will have more of a chance of having a negative impact than playing a softer ball than you would be fit for.
Click to expand...
I am just sharing my experience when it comes to compression I can also assure you I have the recommended swing speed so to speak for the XV. To me compression is the old school way of picking a ball. Ball compressions are not even easy to find you have to look pretty hard for them. If they mattered that much they would be much more accessible and manufacturers would market as such. I have played enough balls on both ends of the compression spectrum with results both good and bad on both ends. I will agree don't argue with physics but on that note you have much more going on than just compression with a ball.
 
JB said:
Uhh Yeah. About 3 years ago.
And then they released SR and found new technology that helps show what compression can do.
Companies thought square drivers were the answer. And were for a period of time for certain segments. Doesnt mean its relevant now.
Click to expand...


Maybe. They spent, I think he said, 4+ years developing the most engineered golf ball ever but then soon after find compression matters? They obviously studied it before or he wouldn't have commented. It seems more like a business decision than science as they seen the success of Bridgestone and the Duo and followed suit where as Titleist doesn't have to because they're top dogs. It doesn't matter to me, I went from gaming I(z) and Black to the Duo so I've experienced both and the differences are there but nothing too drastic for my game. Just me being a skeptic is all.
 
ANd if you go back to the square drivers you will hear every company discuss the exact same thing. Biggest technology and engineering project, etc etc. Nobody said that soon after they realize compression matters. They made multiple compressioned golf balls then too. Just that new technology (both cover and core) has allowed companies to go softer and make a bigger impact without the increase in driver spin.

Hence the reason that as mentioned this year, so many companies are going less compression.
 
tgtt said:
Maybe. They spent, I think he said, 4+ years developing the most engineered golf ball ever but then soon after find compression matters? They obviously studied it before or he wouldn't have commented. It seems more like a business decision than science as they seen the success of Bridgestone and the Duo and followed suit where as Titleist doesn't have to because they're top dogs. It doesn't matter to me, I went from gaming I(z) and Black to the Duo so I've experienced both and the differences are there but nothing too drastic for my game. Just me being a skeptic is all.
Click to expand...
Where does the duo rank in the market? I find it hard to believe that Callaway looks to W/S for innovation
 
blugold said:
Where does the duo rank in the market? I find it hard to believe that Callaway looks to W/S for innovation
Click to expand...

For a while they were the #1 two piece ball on the market. The SuperSoft took over the #1 spot. #1 Surlyn ball on the market is the e6 followed by the NXT Tour.
At the premium level, Im not sure they are in the rankings (Wilson)
 
JB said:
For a while they were the #1 two piece ball on the market. The SuperSoft took over the #1 spot. #1 Surlyn ball on the market is the e6 followed by the NXT Tour.
At the premium level, Im not sure they are in the rankings.
Click to expand...
The Duo was the #2? That's surprising to me. Good on W/S!
 
lightningbolt44 said:
I am just sharing my experience when it comes to compression I can also assure you I have the recommended swing speed so to speak for the XV. To me compression is the old school way of picking a ball. Ball compressions are not even easy to find you have to look pretty hard for them. If they mattered that much they would be much more accessible and manufacturers would market as such. I have played enough balls on both ends of the compression spectrum with results both good and bad on both ends. I will agree don't argue with physics but on that note you have much more going on than just compression with a ball.
Click to expand...

I think they are putting compression front and center more than ever, actually. Posting recommended swing speeds is on almost every package, and every fitting you use either in person or on-line asks how far you hit your 7-iron and Driver...equating to swing speed. This is just a dumbed down version of posting compression for this exact reason. Not many people know how to interpret it, and with the advancements they are making in the components of the balls, they are actually able to get softer balls to perform just as well as harder ones (I.E. the new chrome soft). This allows them to basically tell you what ball you need instead of someone trying to figure it out for themselves.

I still absolutely believe someone should not be playing a ball that is too hard for their swing. That, no matter how you slice it, will never compress for you like it needs to in order to get optimum performance. But I don't believe a softer ball will hurt you that much.
 
cbaker2882 said:
I think they are putting compression front and center more than ever, actually. Posting recommended swing speeds is on almost every package, and every fitting you use either in person or on-line asks how far you hit your 7-iron and Driver...equating to swing speed. This is just a dumbed down version of posting compression for this exact reason. Not many people know how to interpret it, and with the advancements they are making in the components of the balls, they are actually able to get softer balls to perform just as well as harder ones (I.E. the new chrome soft). This allows them to basically tell you what ball you need instead of someone trying to figure it out for themselves.

I still absolutely believe someone should not be playing a ball that is too hard for their swing. That, no matter how you slice it, will never compress for you like it needs to in order to get optimum performance. But I don't believe a softer ball will hurt you that much.
Click to expand...


Ok so I am with you on a lot of this. Why I say compression does not matter for me is exactly what you posted above. Companies are able to get the performance out of a lower compression golf ball. It is not as cut and dry as this is that compression so it must not fit me is what I am getting at. So many variables are at play.
 
lightningbolt44 said:
Ok so I am with you on a lot of this. Why I say compression does not matter for me is exactly what you posted above. Companies are able to get the performance out of a lower compression golf ball. It is not as cut and dry as this is that compression so it must not fit me is what I am getting at. So many variables are at play.
Click to expand...

I think we're both dancing around the same information from different angles. So...agree to agree?
 
Titleist says the DT SoLo is their softest ball ... is that a compression claim or something else?
 
deuce said:
Titleist says the DT SoLo is their softest ball ... is that a compression claim or something else?
Click to expand...

I would have to say yes. I would say it would be rare if at all for a company to use the word "soft" referring to anything other than compression.
 
lightningbolt44 said:
It is also one of the shortest balls I have played at least for me. I played it this past Sunday and last week as well and was shocked how much shorter it was than my normal ball . I put my normal ball into play Saturday and went right back to my normal distances. Having said that I don't think this is because of compression and I think choosing a ball on compression is doing yourself as a golfer a disservice.
Click to expand...


i play the xv and hit it as long if not longer than the prov1x...also like it more than the z star. my ss is 102-105ish
 
emart2173 said:
i play the xv and hit it as long if not longer than the prov1x...also like it more than the z star. my ss is 102-105ish
Click to expand...


I know tons of people that have had great results with the xv for some reason I just dont hit it as far. Not really sure why to be honest.
 
JB said:
Oh gawd...Not MSI Talk... :D
Click to expand...

Oh yeah....not only did I go there....I went there and built a house!

BTW, I'm waiting for a 200 compression ball to come out for Spicoli. I also think he plays a 500 MSI shaft that he tipped 2" in his wedges.

I think in this metric heavy sports society we're living in now that we're going to see more numbers tossed out there in an effort to sell things. For some reason golf is so ego driven for most and having the highest number (other than score) somehow correlates to some thinking they're a better golfer than they are. Next year it'll be some other number for golf balls, like coefficient of lift or mach rating.
 
adamw238 said:
Oh yeah....not only did I go there....I went there and built a house!

BTW, I'm waiting for a 200 compression ball to come out for Spicoli. I also think he plays a 500 MSI shaft that he tipped 2" in his wedges.

I think in this metric heavy sports society we're living in now that we're going to see more numbers tossed out there in an effort to sell things. For some reason golf is so ego driven for most and having the highest number (other than score) somehow correlates to some thinking they're a better golfer than they are. Next year it'll be some other number for golf balls, like coefficient of lift or mach rating.
Click to expand...

You have to admit the names Mach 1/2/3 would be good names for a golf ball line. I'd play the Mach 2 for sure.
 
cbaker2882 said:
You have to admit the names Mach 1/2/3 would be good names for a golf ball line. I'd play the Mach 2 for sure.
Click to expand...

I do like that. As a matter of fact, I want to say I may have submitted that name to TaylorMade when they had that contest a while back to name their new ball. I want to say it was for the Lethal line. But, I had other things in mind. More like a golfer saying, "My ball speed is Mach is .2, and I see you're only at .14. Clearly I'm better because I hit the ball closer to the speed of sound, and therefore require a ball that is appropriately rated." TaylorMade or Callaway would have commercials asking, "What's your Mach Number?" That would then translate into clubs and balls that are even more aerodynamic to further promote getting a higher Mach number.....when in reality all we're really, talking about is club head and ball speed. :alien:

I'm going to start my own rating system called the Coefficient of Awesome. It's a scale that will rate from 1 - 10 and is an indicator of how good of a golfer think you are. "I may be an 32 handicap, but I play equipment that has a CoA rating of 9." I'm ready to take Internet golfing to the next level :act-up:
 
cbaker2882 said:
You have to admit the names Mach 1/2/3 would be good names for a golf ball line. I'd play the Mach 2 for sure.
Click to expand...

It did not work so well for drivers however.
 
I play the lowest compression ball in the market afaik and it works just fine for me.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top