Spin is King. Prove me wrong

Point is if you hit a bad shot you get a bad shot. Period. The ball has nothing to do with it. I've seen guys playing Pro V1's shank the ball into the woods and never see it again. Was that the ball's fault?

glad we agree.
 
Spot on OP. A lot of the counter arguments are sort of off point. Yes, if you can't hit the ball flush or anywhere near the center, it doesn't matter.

However, since the launch monitors have become such a big deal in selling clubs, manufacturers have continued to push spin lower and lower and lower with club design in order to push distance. This is often at the sacrifice of playability. 1800 RPM drivers bomb on the monitor but don't translate well to the course. Also to note spin profiles differ with swing speed. But in general, a lot of guys have ended up buying that launch monitor distance and getting crushed on the course for it. Like hitting 6 irons into greens that can't hold.

Now, low spin can be offset with a proper fitting for irons using peak height and descent angle. The beauty of balls now is you can find balls with as much as 1000 rpm difference on 6 iron shots. So if you find a club you like, you can dial spin in the with ball. But that might punish you somewhere else in the bag.

This year we're finally starting to see the driver heads gravitate away from lower spin and more towards MOI.

Ball fitting, aka spin, is probably going to be the next big thing in club fitting. It really is an important component in the process that's been overlooked for a while.
 
Almost all urethane cover golf balls spin the same on chips and pitches. The biggest factor is the quality of strike.
Based upon my own experimentation, I respectfully disagree. The amount of spin that I see on chips and pitches varies significantly from ball to ball. I will use Callaway as an example, since a Callaway guy was the source of the thread. The ChromeSoft X LS checks up much less quickly for me than the ChromeSoft X. I also can see a visible difference between a standard ChromeSoft and a ChromeSoft X. I can play a ChromeSoft X LS fine at a sea level course, but here in our high elevation, desert air, it does not serve me as well, even though it is longer off the tee. I score much better with a higher spinning ball and much of it has to do with the shots from 50 yards and in.
 
Yeah, what about that descent angle?!? :confused2:

According to a LOT of company people, and fitters, and others, many of which we've heard in interviews the couple years here and everywhere else, low spin was fine, good even, as long as that almighty descent angle was right!! :p



 
Based upon my own experimentation, I respectfully disagree. The amount of spin that I see on chips and pitches varies significantly from ball to ball. I will use Callaway as an example, since a Callaway guy was the source of the thread. The ChromeSoft X LS checks up much less quickly for me than the ChromeSoft X. I also can see a visible difference between a standard ChromeSoft and a ChromeSoft X. I can play a ChromeSoft X LS fine at a sea level course, but here in our high elevation, desert air, it does not serve me as well, even though it is longer off the tee. I score much better with a higher spinning ball and much of it has to do with the shots from 50 yards and in.
I've known and played with guys who definitely get more bite, easier, from some Tour balls than others. They are all capable of playing low, spinning short game shots and have great control over the flight of their longer wedge shots.

I don't think I've known any double digit handicappers with rudimentary short games who could tell any difference in the short game between a Chrome Soft and a Tour B XS or whatever. It's how the ball reacts when you're maximizing contact.

For my 15hcp game the spin differences show up entirely in short irons and full wedge shots. I couldn't possibly say there's more or less spin in one particular model off the driver or around the green. Now if you compare a Tour ball to a Supersoft that's a different matter.
 
Yeah, what about that descent angle?!? :confused2:

According to a LOT of company people, and fitters, and others, many of which we've heard in interviews the couple years here and everywhere else, low spin was fine, good even, as long as that almighty descent angle was right!! :p





Nothing happened. Descent angle absolutely controls the ball stopping. Especially in lieu of spin, which is what we have said previously. The ball spins only on a single axis, how it descends to the green can control how it stays upon getting there. Obviously people can stop a 5 iron on the green, which has thousands less rpms of spin than even a scoring iron.
 
I used to play with a guy, before he moved away, who used those awful low-spin Titleist Velocity balls. But he hit even his 5-iron and hybrids so darned high he'd plop a Velocity down on the green from 190 yards out and it would roll like six feet. For me they'd run off the back of the green hitting 8-iron from 130 yards.
 
Yeah, what about that descent angle?!? :confused2:

According to a LOT of company people, and fitters, and others, many of which we've heard in interviews the couple years here and everywhere else, low spin was fine, good even, as long as that almighty descent angle was right!! :p




Is this the old “everyone should play blades” argument?

we have drivers that support what you call a swing flaw, why is it strange to think that balls can do the same sort of thing for golfers?
 
Nothing happened. Descent angle absolutely controls the ball stopping. Especially in lieu of spin, which is what we have said previously. The ball spins only on a single axis, how it descends to the green can control how it stays upon getting there. Obviously people can stop a 5 iron on the green, which has thousands less rpms of spin than even a scoring iron.
Decent angle plays a role in how much forward momentum there is on a descending object. It doesn't stop anything. Never has, never will. Backward spin on the other hand, works to counter forward momentum once in contact with the green. Steep descent and spin in combination, can do some great things, but when it comes to stop there's no comparison.

My point being that there's difference combinations that work best for each person's ball flight and game. No one thing is probably king for any one person.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: JB
Is this the old “everyone should play blades” argument?

we have drivers that support what you call a swing flaw, why is it strange to think that balls can do the same sort of thing for golfers?
I don't even know what this means.. I'm the last guy pushing everyone to play blades. Only people that want to should. #Canadanblades2021 should still happen though. :p
 
Based upon my own experimentation, I respectfully disagree. The amount of spin that I see on chips and pitches varies significantly from ball to ball. I will use Callaway as an example, since a Callaway guy was the source of the thread. The ChromeSoft X LS checks up much less quickly for me than the ChromeSoft X. I also can see a visible difference between a standard ChromeSoft and a ChromeSoft X. I can play a ChromeSoft X LS fine at a sea level course, but here in our high elevation, desert air, it does not serve me as well, even though it is longer off the tee. I score much better with a higher spinning ball and much of it has to do with the shots from 50 yards and in.
Ok. THP has done the launch monitor data on chip shots with urethane balls and there isn't much difference between urethane covered balls. It's almost always technique and mental.

If you believe certain urethane covered balls spin more or less on chip shots, awesome. The mental side of the game is remarkably important.
 
I don't even know what this means.. I'm the last guy pushing everyone to play blades. Only people that want to should. #Canadanblades2021 should still happen though. :p
It was a shot at the 'perfect descent angle' stuff haha

As someone who hits down on the ball (like a doof), getting a lower spin ball in my bag has been wonderful.
 
Since the primary topic is SPIN, I meant to post in this thread instead of the What ball did you play? thread :

In tribute to Jon Rahm, I pinch-hit for my Pro V1x today with the Chrome Soft X. I've never been a big fan of Callaway golf balls -- something about the logo and dimple design bother me when putting -- but the CSX was impressive in a few areas.

1. With short irons, it doesn't stop on the green within feet or yards; it stops within inches.
2. The CSX is easy to draw. That's saying a lot these days, when every ball wants to go straight.I had fun today shaping shots through the bag with the CSX.
3. Those two items confirm that the CSX hype is real when it comes to spin. Players that use the CSX full-time could really learn to sharpen distances, ball flight, etc., especially in the short game.

For whatever reason, the Pro V1x is the perfect ball for my game, so I didn't see any distance benefits from the CSX. The 1x is longer, for me. Still, I can see why tons of players like or will switch to the CSX. It's an excellent ball for certain type players.

The only negative: I bought the Triple Track by mistake so spent the entire round trying to hide those lines from my view while putting and on the tee.
 
It was a shot at the 'perfect descent angle' stuff haha

As someone who hits down on the ball (like a doof), getting a lower spin ball in my bag has been wonderful.
I honestly think about you every time someone talks X Forged vs. something, or asks about the IO's, or the RX. I just kind of associate them with you because when you were hitting everything in studio back.. whenever, they all seemed to individually contribute to what you were looking for with spin and flight. It was really interesting then and still is to me. I give you grief about the blades, and had my own thing with the X Forged, but don't ever think I wasn't on board with the results you were seeing. There was a lot in that part of the live videos if people were watching close.
 
I can hit a bad shot with any club and any ball.
 
Ok. THP has done the launch monitor data on chip shots with urethane balls and there isn't much difference between urethane covered balls. It's almost always technique and mental.

If you believe certain urethane covered balls spin more or less on chip shots, awesome. The mental side of the game is remarkably important.
This is all a matter of a plot on a spectrum. I am often wrong, but I would bet a significant amount of money that if you take a single digit player and had him/her pitch and chip from 50 yards in with a Titleist AVX and a Titleist Pro V1X, the player would notice a significant difference in how quickly the ball checks when playing at the altitude where I normally play.

I was able to play Torrey Pines South the last weekend it was open to the public before The U.S. Open. I played ChromeSoft X LS, because I wanted the extra distance at sea level. I found the heavy rough on 18 and had to chip out, which left me about 50 yards to the pin. The hole was cut on the left lower part of the green, so I had to cover that little pond, but I did not want my ball to be above the hole. I hit a little low flying pitch that normally hops and stops. The ball spun back. That ball will not spin back for me here in my neck of the woods, where we play at 4000 feet elevation. I can get a ball with more spin to spin back.

This is not spin measured with GC Quad/TrackMan, just anecdotal experience, but it evidences my belief that balls spin more at sea level and the difference between urethane covered balls may be less there. However, here at my elevation, the difference is more pronounced. I play a lot of golf and I do not believe that it is in my head that there is a different amount of spin with short game with different tour level balls.
 
Last edited:
This is all a matter of a plot on a spectrum. I am often wrong, but I would bet a significant amount of money that if you take a single digit player and had him/her pitch and chip from 50 yards in with a Titleist AVX and a Titleist Pro V1X, the player would notice a significant difference in who quickly the ball checks when playing at the altitude where I normally play.

I was able to play Torrey Pines South the last weekend it was open to the public before The U.S. Open. I played ChromeSoft X LS, because I wanted the extra distance at sea level. I found the heavy rough on 18 and had to chip out, which left me about 50 yards to the pin. The hole was cut on the left lower part of the green, so I had to cover that little pond, but I did not want my ball to be above the hole. I hit a little low flying pitch that normally hops and stops. The ball spun back. That ball will not spin back for me here in my neck of the woods, where we play at 4000 feet elevation. I can get a ball with more spin to spin back.

This is not spin measured with GC Quad/TrackMan, just anecdotal experience, but it evidences my belief that balls spin more at sea level and the difference between urethane covered balls may be less there. However, here at my elevation, the difference is more pronounced. I play a lot of golf and I do not believe that it is in my head that there is a different amount of spin with short game with different tour level balls.

My thought is it has more to do with the grass and the condition of the green than the elevation. I could be wrong on the cause but have the same problem stopping the ball here I need as much spin as I can get. I feel like on both full shots and shorter pitch shots the CSX is better at checking than the standard Chrome Soft.
 
This is all a matter of a plot on a spectrum. I am often wrong, but I would bet a significant amount of money that if you take a single digit player and had him/her pitch and chip from 50 yards in with a Titleist AVX and a Titleist Pro V1X, the player would notice a significant difference in who quickly the ball checks when playing at the altitude where I normally play.
You are correct. They would spin differently. Significant? Depends on the player, but at 50 yards there would be a difference.
 
You are correct. They would spin differently. Significant? Depends on the player, but at 50 yards there would be a difference.
I'm trying to find the post from Hawk he did years ago. He hit a bunch of chip shots with different urethane golf balls ranging from the E5 to a Pro-V1x and the spin difference was drastically different. Does that ring a bell?
 
This is not spin measured with GC Quad/TrackMan, just anecdotal experience, but it evidences my belief that balls spin more at sea level and the difference between urethane covered balls may be less there. However, here at my elevation, the difference is more pronounced. I play a lot of golf and I do not believe that it is in my head that there is a different amount of spin with short game with different tour level balls.
I think what you are seeing at altitude is the spin being less effective because of the thinner air. The elevation has nothing to do with the spin on the ball, but since the air is thinner at altitude, the ball gets less lift, and comes in shallower than at sea level.


It does also go on to note that for shorter shots where the ball is moving more slowly, there is less of a difference between being at altitude and being closer to sea level.
 
I think what you are seeing at altitude is the spin being less effective because of the thinner air. The elevation has nothing to do with the spin on the ball, but since the air is thinner at altitude, the ball gets less lift, and comes in shallower than at sea level.


It does also go on to note that for shorter shots where the ball is moving more slowly, there is less of a difference between being at altitude and being closer to sea level.

Yes, this is exactly right. The moment of impact doesn't care a lick what density of air is. That is physics between the ball and clubface. The ball leaves the face with spin and launch dictated by the impact. Immediately after aero takes over. Heavy air increases both drag and lift, resulting in the ball slowing down more and coming in steeper. Light airs lower drag and lift, ball go hot and far.
 
I think what you are seeing at altitude is the spin being less effective because of the thinner air. The elevation has nothing to do with the spin on the ball, but since the air is thinner at altitude, the ball gets less lift, and comes in shallower than at sea level.


It does also go on to note that for shorter shots where the ball is moving more slowly, there is less of a difference between being at altitude and being closer to sea level.
I stand corrected in my terminology. I have read that piece before. It is excellent. Thanks.

My overall point is the same, though. The effect of the more dense air results in a ball reacting as if it had more spin, at least that has been my experience over and over when I play at much lower elevations. I remember the very first time I ever played a round of golf in California. It was back in the 1990’s. I think we were still playing wound balata balls, but I may be wrong. Anyway, I played a course near L.A. and when I hit my wedges, the ball would zip back like you see on tv and it was the first time I had ever experienced it personally. I notice the difference every time I go to much lower elevation and I have now played a lot of golf at sea level in California, the East Coast, Florida and Mexico. The ball reacts significantly differently on the green for me. It is hard for me to believe that it is all in my head, but hey, maybe I am a head case, LOL.
 
I stand corrected in my terminology. I have read that piece before. It is excellent. Thanks.

My overall point is the same, though. The effect of the more dense air results in a ball reacting as if it had more spin, at least that has been my experience over and over when I play at much lower elevations. I remember the very first time I ever played a round of golf in California. It was back in the 1990’s. I think we were still playing wound balata balls, but I may be wrong. Anyway, I played a course near L.A. and when I hit my wedges, the ball would zip back like you see on tv and it was the first time I had ever experienced it personally. I notice the difference every time I go to much lower elevation and I have now played a lot of golf at sea level in California, the East Coast, Florida and Mexico. The ball reacts significantly differently on the green for me. It is hard for me to believe that it is all in my head, but hey, maybe I am a head case, LOL.

You were right though, altitude does have an impact. I hadn’t considered air density.

I played this morning in the rain and that certainly had a noticeable impact on being able to stop the ball. Greens have been so rock hard all year.
 
This debate comes up with drivers. I've heard the Callaway fitting folks discuss it on their radio show.

The basic summary is: pros need low spin because they generate such high clubhead speed. When the VAST majority of amateurs chase low spin, they're actually hurting themselves because they don't generate enough speed to keep the ball in the air without spin.
 
Back
Top