We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Golf Ball Compression: Spin, Speed and Distance

Go to article
SuperStroke
Great video. Crazy the difference in spin you were seeing.

Would have been good to throw in driver and wedge data too, but I get that the video needs to be of reasonable length perhaps. Curious how the lower spin of the RX impacts you on shorter wedge shots and around the greens.

I don't think this video makes any statement about the soft vs. hard golf ball debate. The only way to do that in my opinion is to have two balls with everything identical other than compression. Not sure that is possible without the manufacturer making samples.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #27
Great video @Canadan; I agree people need to test and get fit for their golf balls as much as we get fit for shafts and clubs. One question, as golf balls change in models every year, would you recommend an annual fitting for newer models as they come in? Or do the models per year not change significantly such that when you find one that works for you, you should really stay with the brand and model?
 
DNice26 said:
I don't think this video makes any statement about the soft vs. hard golf ball debate. The only way to do that in my opinion is to have two balls with everything identical other than compression. Not sure that is possible without the manufacturer making samples.
Click to expand...

Can you explain this one further?
Two balls, both multilayer, both urethane covered. I would assume that the biggest difference between them would be compression, right?

With that said, I think there will always be a level of differences, between all balls, that is what makes choices good.

There is just so much misinformation out there in regards to golf ball compression, it was important to show facts and readers know how important golf ball choice is.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #30
DNice26 said:
Great video. Crazy the difference in spin you were seeing.

Would have been good to throw in driver and wedge data too, but I get that the video needs to be of reasonable length perhaps. Curious how the lower spin of the RX impacts you on shorter wedge shots and around the greens.

I don't think this video makes any statement about the soft vs. hard golf ball debate. The only way to do that in my opinion is to have two balls with everything identical other than compression. Not sure that is possible without the manufacturer making samples.
Click to expand...
I think that depends on the player, how the ball reacts around the green. Not to mention playing an RX in Florida on dry bermuda is different from playing in Ohio on soft bent grass etc etc.

I'm not a guy who lives and dies by greenside spin. I can flop to land soft or pitch to bounce and roll without fear around here, so that isn't the most critical component of a ball fitting. Do others feel differently about what matters most to them? I'm betting so - but that's why the primary component of this exploratory video was to say "take a deeper look at the balls you're trying" than "this is the ball you should play"
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #31
Bryndom said:
Great video @Canadan; I agree people need to test and get fit for their golf balls as much as we get fit for shafts and clubs. One question, as golf balls change in models every year, would you recommend an annual fitting for newer models as they come in? Or do the models per year not change significantly such that when you find one that works for you, you should really stay with the brand and model?
Click to expand...
This is the first year I have FULLY committed to a single ball - and that includes giving away balls I have found, and not bouncing around between manufacturers. In the past I've played MOSTLY one ball but have hit others.

My opinion? Find something that works great and commit to it. When new products of similar compression/logic come into the market, test them against what you believe to be your best ball and make determinations on play moving forward.

...now obviously this is extreme and many guys are happy to play whatever is available, I'm just talking about looking for the product that absolutely maximizes your swing potential.
 
Very cool video. Amazing how much difference a ball can make. Definitely needs to be paid attention to for each golfer
 
I am wondering if the same results could be seen with a slower swing speed player? 7 iron is my 160 club and I seem to have good peak height, maybe my QSTs are one of the reasons I roll off the back sometimes?
 
JB said:
Can you explain this one further?
Two balls, both multilayer, both urethane covered. I would assume that the biggest difference between them would be compression, right?

With that said, I think there will always be a level of differences, between all balls, that is what makes choices good.

There is just so much misinformation out there in regards to golf ball compression, it was important to show facts and readers know how important golf ball choice is.
Click to expand...

I don't debate the concept of getting fit and its importance to everyone. That is quite clear in this video.

But this test IMO doesn't conclude any debate about soft vs. hard golf balls. There are other variables not being controlled here to make that conclusion. And I also don't necessarily agree with other sites that state otherwise. I agree 100000% that we all need to be sure the MOST important part of our equipment suites our needs.
 
DNice26 said:
I don't debate the concept of getting fit and its importance to everyone. That is quite clear in this video.

But this test IMO doesn't conclude any debate about soft vs. hard golf balls. There are other variables not being controlled here to make that conclusion. And I also don't necessarily agree with other sites that state otherwise. I agree 100000% that we all need to be sure the MOST important part of our equipment suites our needs.
Click to expand...

Oh definitely, this is not a debate of soft vs hard. One is not better than the other, that would be up to the golfer and their game.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #36
ApexFan said:
Good stuff @Canadan. Something I’ve noticed in my testing when I’m striking the ball really well I don’t see a big difference. When I’m not striking the ball as clean I’ve noticed a softer ball to be less punishing. Meaning I’m losing less distance. I don’t have access to a monitor to get numbers so on course comparisons is best I can do.
Click to expand...
I want to quote this one as well to say that I don't think a monitor is required to find the right ball, if you're willing to buy a few sleeves to try.

Most of us have a putting green available, so learning about each ball there is always a positive. Then taking it to the course and giving them a try against each other, whether that means full rounds with each type of ball until you find one that produces the best overall numbers, or launches in the shape you're looking for, etc.

I've been incredibly fortunate to have access to some incredible facilities to better understand what's best for my game, and having the Tech Studio at my disposal last week, I got to really sink my teeth into why Tour B RX has been miles ahead of others on iron performance.

...I just figured it had something to do with carrying around my 4.5 year old on my shoulders all year long haha #DadBod
 
  • On Fire
Reactions: JB
Dan, I'm curious.... have you by chance had any opportunity to ask BStone about this ball and whether its a good fit for you? I ask because I just checked out the website and it says it is ideal for guys with driver SS under 105. I believe you are a good bit faster than that.
So although you appear to have concluded this ball is great for you, and I'm not debating what you feel is best for your game, I'm just curious what BStone would say about it.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #38
DNice26 said:
Dan, I'm curious.... have you by chance had any opportunity to ask BStone about this ball and whether its a good fit for you? I ask because I just checked out the website and it says it is ideal for guys with driver SS under 105. I believe you are a good bit faster than that.
So although you appear to have concluded this ball is great for you, and I'm not debating what you feel is best for your game, I'm just curious what BStone would say about it.
Click to expand...
I quoted in the thread already, but at Bridgestone HQ last year, they fit me into RX. Here is our discussion after the fitting;

 
DNice26 said:
Dan, I'm curious.... have you by chance had any opportunity to ask BStone about this ball and whether its a good fit for you? I ask because I just checked out the website and it says it is ideal for guys with driver SS under 105. I believe you are a good bit faster than that.
So although you appear to have concluded this ball is great for you, and I'm not debating what you feel is best for your game, I'm just curious what BStone would say about it.
Click to expand...
That's the main failing in online fittings or general 'this ball is for this SS' recommendations. It's more complicated and individual than that, and Bridgestone went against their general advice with @Canadan because that blanket rule didn't put him in what is actually the best fit for him.
 
JB said:
Oh definitely, this is not a debate of soft vs hard. One is not better than the other, that would be up to the golfer and their game.
Click to expand...

One thing for me that needs to be better controlled for ball fitting is mats vs. grass. They provide very different interactions and, I suspect, influence things like spin.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #41
OldandStiff said:
That's the main failing in online fittings or general 'this ball is for this SS' recommendations. It's more complicated and individual than that, and Bridgestone went against their general advice with @Canadan because that blanket rule didn't put him in what is actually the best fit for him.
Click to expand...
It's a reasonable baseline for optimization on a standard golf swing - Which we all know is rare haha

It's also why Bridgestone has ALWAYS encouraged fitting and has used numerous methods to support the folks who want to play their ball.
 
GoldenBuff said:
One thing for me that needs to be better controlled for ball fitting is mats vs. grass. They provide very different interactions and, I suspect, influence things like spin.
Click to expand...

Of course. Every lie on the course is different. Those are variables that are uncontrollable.
The baseline wouldn't change however.
 
JB said:
Oh definitely, this is not a debate of soft vs hard. One is not better than the other, that would be up to the golfer and their game.

My question is about bettering the testing, what variables are not controlled that should be?

The dynamic of spin increasing in firmer balls is pretty typical. We just wanted to show how much and how under thought it is.
Click to expand...

My question is about bettering the testing, what variables are not controlled that should be?

I'm not a ball expert that is for sure, but here are some that come to mind:
  • The number of dimples
  • The type and depth of the dimples
  • The orientation of the dimples
  • The coating on the ball, paint, amount etc
  • The number of internal layers
  • The thickness, compression of the various internal layers and their formulation
  • Of course there are all of the external factors with a human hitting a ball in a different place each time as well. Although Iron Dan is a close second.
Keeping all the above the same, but testing two nearly identical balls on a machine, only changing the compression. That is how I would run a test if I were trying to prove my point on soft vs. hard. Scientific approach, controlling as many variables as possible. Only the manufacturers have the ability to run such a test I believe, so personally, I think of it all as just noise and marketing. This video does an incredible job of showing how trying a ball oneself, getting a fitting with data and testing on course, is the absolute answer.
 
OldandStiff said:
That's the main failing in online fittings or general 'this ball is for this SS' recommendations. It's more complicated and individual than that, and Bridgestone went against their general advice with @Canadan because that blanket rule didn't put him in what is actually the best fit for him.
Click to expand...

Ok.....no doubt. So I guess the manufacturer themselves are a bit guilty of pushing a poor approach.

Although, I'm sure they do this in part because MOST golfers are NOT getting fit. Us maniacs on this site are the exceptions, not the rule out there.
 
DNice26 said:
My question is about bettering the testing, what variables are not controlled that should be?

I'm not a ball expert that is for sure, but here are some that come to mind:
  • The number of dimples
  • The type and depth of the dimples
  • The orientation of the dimples
  • The coating on the ball, paint, amount etc
  • The number of internal layers
  • The thickness, compression of the various internal layers and their formulation
  • Of course there are all of the external factors with a human hitting a ball in a different place each time as well. Although Iron Dan is a close second.
Keeping all the above the same, but testing two nearly identical balls on a machine, only changing the compression. That is how I would run a test if I were trying to prove my point on soft vs. hard. Scientific approach, controlling as many variables as possible. Only the manufacturers have the ability to run such a test I believe, so personally, I think of it all as just noise and marketing. This video does an incredible job of showing how trying a ball oneself, getting a fitting with data and testing on course, is the absolute answer.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with those things playing a role.
The issue is the golfer cannot buy that, so testing it would not help them as much in my opinion.

Unless the goal is to say emphatically one is better than the other, which anybody that does would be incorrect and certainly will never be a goal of our content. But rather education on what compression does to a golf ball and how much it can impact the golfer at their personal level.
 
Canadan said:
It's a reasonable baseline for optimization on a standard golf swing - Which we all know is rare haha

It's also why Bridgestone has ALWAYS encouraged fitting and has used numerous methods to support the folks who want to play their ball.
Click to expand...
Oh absolutely. Blindly, and without more data, it's all based in reasonable likelihoods. And they seem to have historically been good about encouraging people to confirm things beyond those general likelihoods.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #47
OldandStiff said:
Oh absolutely. Blindly, and without more data, it's all based in reasonable likelihoods. And they seem to have historically been good about encouraging people to confirm things beyond those general likelihoods.
Click to expand...
I think the point of that is more about guys standing in a Golf Galaxy or whatever store debating on a Bridgestone.

You can't say things like "this ball is softer" or "this ball is firmer" to appeal to people... and you can't really go full Titleist who sells balls because they are Titleist. Makes sense that in the most basic sense, they would make those distinctions.
 
JB said:
Of course. Every lie on the course is different. Those are variables that are uncontrollable.
The baseline wouldn't change however.
Click to expand...

Good chance I need to change my lie angle, but I feel like with mats I get some club grab that can change face angle and dynamic loft. I also start coming into the ball more shallow on mats to minimize impact on my left wrist, where pain is always first to manifest with golf. When I hit on grass I don't notice anything like that. Unfortunately I can't hit outdoors with real balls and a monitor. That's just not an option. All that said, I agree with the baseline. The things I see with different balls from indoor GCQuad sessions do seem to hold as I play. I lose a little driver distance (trivial) but overall I have better iron control with B RX over B X mostly because of spin and wind (mountain upslope and downslope winds are a daily thing).
 
Interesting stuff. What irons model were you hitting? I don't recall you saying. Just that it was a 7 and 4.
 
Man.. You spin the ProV1x way more than I would have thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top