Ballnamic: PING Ball Fitting?

[Iceman!]

I have to admit, I'm perplexed.

In the top 5 list of Internet Golfers grips is the ability to get fit for a Golf Ball.
So for less than a cost of a dozen ProV1's, you can get your choice of 100 different golf balls narrowed down to 5 based on your input.
And you have 5 opportunities to change your input.
Someone has done all of the gathering of data of the indocyncrites of each available golf ball (See TXG Video) and put it in chart for you.
Why wouldn't a golfer take advantage of that?

 

[OldandStiff]

Here's a couple grabs from the video. Based on Matt's numbers.

A few things jumped out at me. Like the 7 iron distance difference between the CSX and V1x, which I absolutely see on course and doesn't necessarily show up on quad.

 

[Golfers Anonymous]

Forgot about this for a moment, glad to see more results. It’s a service that required hours of time and effort to create so I’d assume they’d need to recoup that is where I’m confused by people wanting it for free. If you did your job or a service and someone said I’m not paying you I’m sure you’d have some choice words after being stiffed.

 

[LSMO]

This intrigues me a little bit. I like that they have no ball in the mix

 

[willplaysgolf]

I was pretty interested in this when it first came out, but held off due to some initial feedback on here. After watching the TXG video I decided to give it a go. I've been playing the Tour B X pretty exclusively the last few years, and have been wondering if I should branch out a bit (even though I have no complaints with the B X) so thought it might be a good time to do it. Below are the results I got. I used typical data from my SkyTrak as applicable.





So I guess it confirmed that the Tour B X is a good ball for me, and that CSX/CSX LS would be good options. If they release either of those balls in standard Truvis I might give them a serious go, otherwise I may stick with B X for the time being.

I did a second fitting with it filtered for the cheapest category, and got Cut Blue, Vice Pro, Vice Pro Plus, and TM Tour Response, but none of those were above 90%, and based off the tradeoffs I probably wouldn't consider those too much based off Ballnamic data unless I really needed to pinch pennies.

 

[golfer_teej]

I did the Ballnamic and it came down to:
Tour B X - 96.9
Chrome Soft X LS -95.9
Chrome Soft X - 95
ProV1 - 88.5 (current gamer)

In the last couple of years Ive played those top three choices along with Left Dash, ZStar XV and ZStar Diamond so very familiar with how they play. Ive been using the ProV1 because it flies straighter for me. The top 3 are definitely longer and better in the wind but I hit more fairways with the ProV1 and I'll sacrifice the distance for 'straighter'. I thought the site was pretty good and pretty spot on with what I've seen on the course, but I personally am not sure its worth the money for me. Now if I wasnt able to test a bunch of golf balls, or had no idea where to start I think this would be awesome, because I would have no complaints playing any of those top 3 balls.

 

[JB]

I have to admit, I'm perplexed.

In the top 5 list of Internet Golfers grips is the ability to get fit for a Golf Ball.
So for less than a cost of a dozen ProV1's, you can get your choice of 100 different golf balls narrowed down to 5 based on your input.
And you have 5 opportunities to change your input.
Someone has done all of the gathering of data of the indocyncrites of each available golf ball (See TXG Video) and put it in chart for you.
Why wouldn't a golfer take advantage of that?

That is fair, but the flip side is launch monitors are accessible to a lot of people currently be it at a store or a demo day, so opportunity does exist, rather than relying on an algorhthm

 

[TahoeDan]

I decided to give the ballnamic fitting a whirl. I have currently been playing Taylormade TP5 balls as they were the balls I used when getting fitted and enjoyed how they felt. I have tried a few other brands sporadically during the summer but always came back to the TP5, mainly because I bought a couple dozen when I bought my new irons. Prior to the ballnamic fitting I had done brand specific online fittings before and always got fitted for the higher spinning versions of their ball. Looks like I need to do some testing on the lower spin balls. I have not tried any of the Top 4 that were requested, actually never heard of Odin before today. Looking forward to some on the course testing.

 

[Iceman!]

I decided to give the ballnamic fitting a whirl. I have currently been playing Taylormade TP5 balls as they were the balls I used when getting fitted and enjoyed how they felt. I have tried a few other brands sporadically during the summer but always came back to the TP5, mainly because I bought a couple dozen when I bought my new irons. Prior to the ballnamic fitting I had done brand specific online fittings before and always got fitted for the higher spinning versions of their ball. Looks like I need to do some testing on the lower spin balls. I have not tried any of the Top 4 that were requested, actually never heard of Odin before today. Looking forward to some on the course testing.

View attachment 9136730

View attachment 9136729

Well, that is different.
Did you input Trackman data or by distances?
I'm curious how it determined you were a "High Spin" guy...
@OldandStiff Think because is Driver distance is at 260 and his 7i is at 145 that he has too much spin and it's costing him yards?

 

[TahoeDan]

Well, that is different.
Did you input Trackman data or by distances?
I'm curious how it determined you were a "High Spin" guy...
@OldandStiff Think because is Driver distance is at 260 and his 7i is at 145 that he has too much spin and it's costing him yards?

I did a combination of both. I had my trackman date for my driver but at Club Champion the iron data was from a 6 iron. So I used my distances for the 7 iron.

 

[Iceman!]

I did a combination of both. I had my trackman date for my driver but at Club Champion the iron data was from a 6 iron. So I used my distances for the 7 iron.

BTW you can set the data on 6i:

 

[TahoeDan]

BTW you can set the data on 6i:View attachment 9136778View attachment 9136778

Great!! I didn't know that. I will redo it and see if it makes any changes. Thanks

 

[ArmyGolf]

It's a cool idea if it was free. I struggle to put any stock in a web tool and view it kind of like the shaft fitting tools on some websites. Mostly useless other than internet golfing.

$39? Not a chance.

 

[erock9174]

That is fair, but the flip side is launch monitors are accessible to a lot of people currently be it at a store or a demo day, so opportunity does exist, rather than relying on an algorhthm

I have been to many a demo day in my time. Never once have a seen an oem setup a launch monitor and have various different model balls to have you hit and see your numbers. The closest was Bridgestone showed up at a local course one time. They had me hit 3 balls into a net with my gamer ball at the time (Supersoft), had me hit 3 with an e6, gave me a little print out receipt of both balls (Supersoft) was better according to the numbers but the B-stone guy said I should be playing the e6. That left my head scratching. And we only hit a driver not an iron or wedge. Niether were an option. If that is Bridgestone's idea of a ball fitting, it seemed pretty suss, as my 13 yr old would call it lol.

Maybe there are places that offer a proper ball fitting with many balls to choose from out there. If this is available unfortunately it's not around where I live. We have Club Champion and a local fitting center that is considered a top 100 place in the country for club fittings and neither have ball fittings.

I would love to try a proper ball fitting, but from a fitters perspective, I could see this being very cost prohibitive especially if you are doing a full ball flight option using Trackman on a range. In my mind, a proper fit would entail, hitting at least 3 balls with driver, 3 with an iron and 3 with a wedge with every ball out there that might be a proper fit for a golfer. That would be a lot of balls that the place would have to stock if hitting out onto a range. Obviously they would need less balls if hitting into a net. I would prefer the full flight measured with dopler though.

Another option would be to try and do a test on your own. Around me I can rent Trackman, GC Hawk, GC Quad or GC3 for about $40 an hour. But then the cost of the balls would fall on me to source. For tour level balls, my local shop sells sleeves but I would be looking around $13.95 per sleeve (what they charge) and depending on how many balls I wanted to enter my test, the cost would grow pretty quickly. Easlily over $100 in balls because I'd like to test quite a few of them.

I am not saying that the Ping system is the end all be all or is even accurate, just reacting to your post about launch monitors are accessible. I find no fault in that statement, but inferring that just because launch monitors are available, that its easy for people to get a ball fit on them, I think is a bit of a reach without a decent outlay.

Another option as @OldandStiff pointed out is to do an on course test. That is ideal way to test, but often times this is not easily done if courses are crowded. And for those of us not fortunate to play a ton of golf, simply can't do on course testing quickly enough.

So I am on the camp of @Iceman! in that I think its an option out there that can at least be helpful to narrow a few balls down for an individual.
And for us fringe lunatic golf fantactics, its data and I love data..same reason I use Shot Scope and Game Golf since 2016. I like taking the deep dive into all of the data.

 

[checkered]

Totally forgot about this. I was interested in this, but the $40 price tag is a huge deterrent to me. I don't think it should be free, I just think for what it seems to be, it seems steep. Maybe my expectations are too high.

 

[erock9174]

Totally forgot about this. I was interested in this, but the $40 price tag is a huge deterrent to me. I don't think it should be free, I just think for what it seems to be, it seems steep. Maybe my expectations are too high.

I hear ya there. I'd like to see this more around the $28 price point, maybe $30, but still considering it at $40. That is about the cost of a round of golf for me. Lord knows I have spent $40 on worse things.

 

[OldandStiff]

Well, that is different.
Did you input Trackman data or by distances?
I'm curious how it determined you were a "High Spin" guy...
@OldandStiff Think because is Driver distance is at 260 and his 7i is at 145 that he has too much spin and it's costing him yards?

Based on the driver scores, yeah. Seems like the spin is costing him a lot off the tee. If you spin TP5 up a bit off the tee, it can stall out quick.

 

[OldandStiff]

I mean you're either trusting a wants/desires algorithm based on your info and on actual ball flight data to guide you towards a ball that suits your needs, or you're trusting a generic algothm based on very limited observations at or shortly after impact that calculate ball flight results for a theoretical ball.. that's not your ball. It's why I Iaugh when someone mentions land angle on quad. It takes very little real world testing to hit two balls on quad with same speed launch and spin, and then on course, to see that they can fly very differently. But quad doesn't know that. It doesn't have different calculated flights for different balls. So you're basing that land angle on the calculated flight of a ball that only exists in terms of mathematical pieces, extrapolated out to it's full flight based on an algorithm, and into calculated conditions. So not your actual ball past those few initial observations off the face, not your actual ball flight, and not your actual conditions to create that number. Take those two same balls that launch and spin the same initially but fly differently, and put them into a 10 mph wind and watch the deviation change again. Could get wider, but heck, could end up landing at the exact same yardage. You don't know. Would take a near miracle to have them coming in at the same land angle regardless, and an even bigger miracle for both to come in at their calculated land angle. Add in a slight elevation change with the different flights.. and on and on. Only in golf would we be crazy enough to base detailed equipment decisions on imaginary and inherently incorrect outcomes that many steps removed from actual. And they basically show you that in the video posted above.

I'm not bashing indoor monitors or anything. I'm on them a lot. Just trying to take more from them than makes any logical sense. Guys like Ian admit quite often the limitations of what they're able to observe with balls on indoor equipment. Things like ballnamic take into account what actually happens with each individual model of ball over the course of it's full flight for various initial launch, spin, and speeds, and while surely not perfect, it's infinitely more valuable to me when comparing golf balls. And it seems like a pretty direct shortcut to the ones you'd want for youself.

 

[1860VS]

I have done just fine "fitting" my ball choices on real courses in real varying winds and green receptiveness. I don't see how any on line fitting could come close.

 

[4hourrule]

I'm curious what those ways are for most people? I mean I spend a lot of time and effort, and money I guess, testing and comparing differences on course. I don't think most people have that option.

For example, I spent a good deal of time testing and tracking and videoing the new Tour B X on wedge approach to realize, confirm, and show that it's a dog versus the CSX and CSX LS when this just tells with a score in a couple minutes. And can adjust the winners for you based on the wants you input. And it's based on full flight outdoor testing instead of right at impact, which is what ball performance is all about in the end. It feels like a bargain to me at less than the cost of a box of balls, or a single round of golf. I'd love to see some Seed balls in it.

What you said, "full flight", vs stats off Club Face. Never understood how you could relate those #s to actual flight threw the air depending on wind conditions and entire flight of Ball.

 

[erock9174]

I have done just fine "fitting" my ball choices on real courses in real varying winds and green receptiveness. I don't see how any on line fitting could come close.

I don’t think it’s meant to. your way is the most ideal way to test.
I view ballnamic as more of a way to give me similar options to my gamer (assuming a decent fit) and perhaps cheaper options than what I’m playing now.

 

[Iceman!]

I don’t think it’s meant to. your way is the most ideal way to test.
I view ballnamic as more of a way to give me similar options to my gamer (assuming a decent fit) and perhaps cheaper options than what I’m playing now.

Yeah, I agree with you that real world is always better however Ballnamic gives you 4-5 suggestions from where to start from.

I find it interesting that the #1 ball purchased, Titleist ProV1, hasn't really show up in anyone's results or in the top 90% tile of a result. (Unless I skimmed over it somewhere).

 

[Chef23]

That is fair, but the flip side is launch monitors are accessible to a lot of people currently be it at a store or a demo day, so opportunity does exist, rather than relying on an algorhthm

My one issue with this is access to golf balls. It can be hard to find premium golf balls by the sleeve. Even then at 13-14 a sleeve you are looking at the price of fitting to get to test 4-5 different balls.

I haven’t done it but I am intrigued. If it was an annual membership I definitely would do it.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

My one issue with this is access to golf balls. It can be hard to find premium golf balls by the sleeve. Even then at 13-14 a sleeve you are looking at the price of fitting to get to test 4-5 different balls.

I haven’t done it but I am intrigued. If it was an annual membership I definitely would do it.

Most of the "ball testing" I've done over the years involves comparing relatively few balls but comparing them over several rounds. So I need at least a sleeve to really get much useful comparison since I'll need to play it at least one round side by side with my usual ball and at least a couple rounds on its own. A sleeve is about right for 3-4 rounds, especially if I'm deliberately hitting a wide range of shots including some that might not be the most ball-conserving if you know what I mean.

But it is disappointing when I spring for $12-$15 on a sleeve of balls and after four holes I'm like, "Oh heck no this ain't working at all". I always say it might take me a lot of golf to tell that one ball is better than my usual one but I can often tell quickly if it's worse.

Some balls I've really liked after a 3-4 round comparison using one sleeve so I'll buy a dozen or two and play them for a couple months before deciding they're not quite suiting me in the long run. But if it's a close call like that I generally end up just reverting to my long-time favorite Pro V1x. No big deal to "waste" two months worth of golf on a ball I ultimately don't stick with. If it's close enough I didn't see a clear difference after 3-4 rounds it's close enough it's not exactly causing my scores to blow up.

 

[Chef23]

Most of the "ball testing" I've done over the years involves comparing relatively few balls but comparing them over several rounds. So I need at least a sleeve to really get much useful comparison since I'll need to play it at least one round side by side with my usual ball and at least a couple rounds on its own. A sleeve is about right for 3-4 rounds, especially if I'm deliberately hitting a wide range of shots including some that might not be the most ball-conserving if you know what I mean.

But it is disappointing when I spring for $12-$15 on a sleeve of balls and after four holes I'm like, "Oh heck no this ain't working at all". I always say it might take me a lot of golf to tell that one ball is better than my usual one but I can often tell quickly if it's worse.

Some balls I've really liked after a 3-4 round comparison using one sleeve so I'll buy a dozen or two and play them for a couple months before deciding they're not quite suiting me in the long run. But if it's a close call like that I generally end up just reverting to my long-time favorite Pro V1x. No big deal to "waste" two months worth of golf on a ball I ultimately don't stick with. If it's close enough I didn't see a clear difference after 3-4 rounds it's close enough it's not exactly causing my scores to blow up.

I agree at some point I want to spend time with the ball on a golf course so a sleeve is required. I see Ballnamic as a way to maybe put some options on the table I might not have considered and narrow the field a bit. I will likely pull the trigger on doing it over the winter when I am bored and have access to our club’s Trackman to get some current data on my swing.