We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Ballnamic: PING Ball Fitting?

SuperStroke
Reviving an old thread here. Has anyone used Ballnamic lately? I know it hasn’t been updated for 2026 models yet but decided to do it on a whim anyway. My top recommendation was the PXG Xtreme Tour X, which wasn’t a huge surprise as I typically X model balls. My complaint is that I only see the results for their top 5 recommendations. I really wish I could see their data for all the balls in their system and make my own determination. The shocker for me was that the Callaway Chrome Tour X didn’t crack their top 5 for me as it has been my trusted gamer since last summer. Even being the prior gen I would have expected it to show up.

For reference here are my results:
1. PXG Xtreme Tour X (96.4%)
2. Srixon Z Star Diamond (94.3%)
3. Srixon Z Star XV (93.5%)
4. Maxfli Tour X (92.7%)
5. PXG Xtreme Tour (92.3%)

So what’s everyone’s thoughts? How reliable is Ballnamic? Should I run out and buy a box of the PXG balls?
 
The Scott said:
Reviving an old thread here. Has anyone used Ballnamic lately? I know it hasn’t been updated for 2026 models yet but decided to do it on a whim anyway. My top recommendation was the PXG Xtreme Tour X, which wasn’t a huge surprise as I typically X model balls. My complaint is that I only see the results for their top 5 recommendations. I really wish I could see their data for all the balls in their system and make my own determination. The shocker for me was that the Callaway Chrome Tour X didn’t crack their top 5 for me as it has been my trusted gamer since last summer. Even being the prior gen I would have expected it to show up.

For reference here are my results:
1. PXG Xtreme Tour X (96.4%)
2. Srixon Z Star Diamond (94.3%)
3. Srixon Z Star XV (93.5%)
4. Maxfli Tour X (92.7%)
5. PXG Xtreme Tour (92.3%)

So what’s everyone’s thoughts? How reliable is Ballnamic? Should I run out and buy a box of the PXG balls?
Click to expand...
How much do you trust the numbers you put into it? That’s been the thing for me is when I did it a couple years ago I was feeding it numbers I had from an R10. Which I’ve since learned were not exactly very trustworthy based on seeing numbers on much more accurate machines.
 
The Scott said:
Reviving an old thread here. Has anyone used Ballnamic lately? I know it hasn’t been updated for 2026 models yet but decided to do it on a whim anyway. My top recommendation was the PXG Xtreme Tour X, which wasn’t a huge surprise as I typically X model balls. My complaint is that I only see the results for their top 5 recommendations. I really wish I could see their data for all the balls in their system and make my own determination. The shocker for me was that the Callaway Chrome Tour X didn’t crack their top 5 for me as it has been my trusted gamer since last summer. Even being the prior gen I would have expected it to show up.

For reference here are my results:
1. PXG Xtreme Tour X (96.4%)
2. Srixon Z Star Diamond (94.3%)
3. Srixon Z Star XV (93.5%)
4. Maxfli Tour X (92.7%)
5. PXG Xtreme Tour (92.3%)

So what’s everyone’s thoughts? How reliable is Ballnamic? Should I run out and buy a box of the PXG balls?
Click to expand...

I find it’s a good way to learn about balls that may fit you. But until it’s updated I wouldn’t go running to do anything.
 
I honestly forgot all about this.
 
Was it the LA ball it spit out for a bunch of people a couple of years ago?
 
Parrot said:
Was it the LA ball it spit out for a bunch of people a couple of years ago?
Click to expand...
I actually always found it to be pretty balanced. I always got Rec’s of balls that I already played, or that I knew did indeed fit my needs.

It just never made any sense at all for Ping, imo.
 
The Scott said:
Reviving an old thread here. Has anyone used Ballnamic lately? I know it hasn’t been updated for 2026 models yet but decided to do it on a whim anyway. My top recommendation was the PXG Xtreme Tour X, which wasn’t a huge surprise as I typically X model balls. My complaint is that I only see the results for their top 5 recommendations. I really wish I could see their data for all the balls in their system and make my own determination. The shocker for me was that the Callaway Chrome Tour X didn’t crack their top 5 for me as it has been my trusted gamer since last summer. Even being the prior gen I would have expected it to show up.

For reference here are my results:
1. PXG Xtreme Tour X (96.4%)
2. Srixon Z Star Diamond (94.3%)
3. Srixon Z Star XV (93.5%)
4. Maxfli Tour X (92.7%)
5. PXG Xtreme Tour (92.3%)

So what’s everyone’s thoughts? How reliable is Ballnamic? Should I run out and buy a box of the PXG balls?
Click to expand...
I just used it as part of the 2ndSwing Virtual Fitting call. We plugged in averages from recent sim sessions, so should be pretty accurate data and results. It can heavily sway results based on how important certain things are. For example we put high importance on eliminating high flyers. Because of that ProV1X was my top followed closely by ProV1 and Chrome Tour
 
Jman said:
I actually always found it to be pretty balanced. I always got Rec’s of balls that I already played, or that I knew did indeed fit my needs.

It just never made any sense at all for Ping, imo.
Click to expand...
At least they could be unbiased since they didn't have one to push themselves
 
Dan.The.King said:
At least they could be unbiased since they didn't have one to push themselves
Click to expand...
Eh. Kinda? Hahaha

Still, made no sense for them

Was fun to mess with though!!!
 
I think Ballnamic is one of the best resources available for golfers to get fitted to the most appropriate golf ball for their game. The fact that PING does not manufacture their own golf balls makes them a genuinely reliable source. Independent research is always vastly superior to all others. Any golf ball company-based ball fitting is suspect. (This is true in any industry when a company with a product in the field is sponsoring the testing. Data can be and is easily is manipulated to show any results you want or to change the focus of the findings. You see this constantly in everything from specious political explanations and messaging to advertising claims and endorsements. Yes. Outrageous claims and untruths can always be manipulated and spun to be seen in a more favorable light).

The fact that a golfer can input his own data and numbers, ball flight information, and desired performance outcomes is priceless. Of course, like anything else, proper interpretation of the results is pivotal. I believe that Ballnamic provides a great starting point from which to begin your own on-course testing. Launch monitor results are helpful. However, I believe that on-course testing is essential if you want to truly know how a ball will perform... (I,e., hitting it off the turf; watching the actual ball flight and trajectory; seeing how it performs in the wind; how the ball feels off the club face; how it rolls on putts; how it spins; etc).

FWIW: I heard in an interview with PING, that they developed Ballnamic to help them with golf club development.
 
I've never trusted it because of the name. The namic bit just sounds too phoney.
 
The Scott said:
Reviving an old thread here. Has anyone used Ballnamic lately? I know it hasn’t been updated for 2026 models yet but decided to do it on a whim anyway. My top recommendation was the PXG Xtreme Tour X, which wasn’t a huge surprise as I typically X model balls. My complaint is that I only see the results for their top 5 recommendations. I really wish I could see their data for all the balls in their system and make my own determination. The shocker for me was that the Callaway Chrome Tour X didn’t crack their top 5 for me as it has been my trusted gamer since last summer. Even being the prior gen I would have expected it to show up.

For reference here are my results:
1. PXG Xtreme Tour X (96.4%)
2. Srixon Z Star Diamond (94.3%)
3. Srixon Z Star XV (93.5%)
4. Maxfli Tour X (92.7%)
5. PXG Xtreme Tour (92.3%)

So what’s everyone’s thoughts? How reliable is Ballnamic? Should I run out and buy a box of the PXG balls?
Click to expand...
Do you like a high trajectory X ball? If so, that’s why it won’t recommend the CTX - it is a low trajectory X ball like the TP5x. I believe all those other X balls you listed in the results are high trajectory Xs (which is what I like/need).
 
New release balls updated:

 
The Scott said:
Good to know! Sounds like it’s time for me to run a new fitting!
Click to expand...
I won a free fitting in an X contest in December and have been waiting for this before running it. 👍🏻
 
Alright and just like that I have run a new fitting. Top 5 results:

1. Srixon XV (94.6%)
2. TaylorMade TP5 (94.5%)
3. Srixon Z Star Diamond (94.5%)
4. OnCore Vero X2 (92.7%)
5. Maxfli Tour X (92.2%)

I haven’t hit any of the top 4 recommendations. Have limited experience with Srixon and TaylorMade balls and I don’t think I’ve ever even seen an OnCore ball in the wild. Sounds like I’ve got some research to do.
 
I did it a couple years ago, still have the results. If anything it confirmed what I was already thinking. It recommended the Z-Diamond and my regular Z as #2 option. Nothing surprising.
 
Current ball: Maxfli Tour X

Used Skytrak launch and spin data from the last week or two averaged out with obvious outliers removed.

1. Wilson Staff Model X - 96.3%
2. Callaway Chrome Tour - 95.1%
3. Bridgestone BX - 93.9%
4. Mizuno Pro X - 93.8%
5. Maxfli Tour X - 89.8%

Have not tried this year's Chrome Tour, but had issues keeping it in the air off the tee with the prior model but Ballnamic does predict it to be my longest with irons (by 1 yard) and least side spin on irons (27 workability score out of 100 with the others all over 50).

Staff Model X and BX I have played a few holes each so far recently. I think I prefer the feel of the BX overall between the two. Never have tried the Mizuno ball.

I actually had TWO free codes, so I ran it again but told it I didn't care about fliers, and wanted a soft ball. That one came back with the normal Wilson Staff Model as a 96.7% fit and Staff Model X as 2nd at 94.5%. My current Maxfli Tour X stayed in 5th place but changed to a 90.2% match, up slightly.


Comparing results, it looks like I get slightly better driver performance from the X and slightly better iron performance from the standard in the Wilson, but it is only about 1 yard difference so feel and short game probably a personal preference differentiator for me there.

Always fun to play with.

Need to spend more time with the Staff Model X and BX, I think overall I like those two the best after playing about 9 holes with each.
 
IMG_4547.jpeg
 
WELCOME10 promo code for $10 off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top