We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Interesting Ball Test by the Golf Academy

SuperStroke
JB

JB

Follow @THPGolf on Social Media
Albatross 2024 Club
Staff member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
283,631
Reaction score
435,388
Location
THP Experiences
Take it for what you will, those that like data, might enjoy this test they did. Hopefully some THPers get to do their own testing this year and chime in with what they find from the different balls on the market.

 
I like the video, but I wish the Pro V1/X weren't always considered the standard. I think for numbers driven and or die-hard golfers, the pro v1/x aren't the standard.

I would like to see more numbers from all the other great options out there - Srixon, TM, Bridgestone, etc.
 
Callaway’s got to be loving this!
 
Enjoyed that great, light hearted video. It gives me another reason to pick up that refurbished GC2 this spring. I have no doubt my ball is not optimized. Heck I haven't even tried a Chrome Soft.
 
It would be so cool to get an hour or so on a launch monitor and do a fairly comprehensive test like this involving as many balls as possible. I think the results could be eye opening, and not so comparing a 2 piece surlyn to a 4 piece urethane at 1 specific mph. Nonetheless, I will do my diligence in picking my ball this year based on the supply I have.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Does everybody on this video answer to "Coach"? To me, the test would have been more meaningful using modern equipment where ball speed retention is much better with slightly off center hits in comparison to a 20 year old blade.
 
With so much emphasis being put on shaft fitting lately, I think getting ball fit is going to start being equally emphasized in the coming years.

Now if we could only find a company that would travel around the country helping us get access to a ball fitting in order to increase their brand presence and consumer interaction while also gaining some of our golf equipment business. That'd be plum neat.
 
Sox Fan said:
To me, the test would have been more meaningful using modern equipment where ball speed retention is much better with slightly off center hits in comparison to a 20 year old blade.
Click to expand...

interesting thought. to me, i think using a club with "old tech" that doesn't have any design elements meant to help retain or maximize ball speed would showcase even more how much or little the ball is helping.

these three guys probably all have really good, repeatable swings so i'm not sure that we should all extrapolate their experiences to our own potential performance with these balls.
 
the repeatable swings help, but numbers don't lie. Interesting to see and wonder how much gain would see with modern tech or even off a driver versus the iron.
 
I'd like to see the TP5/X thrown in there for comparison, too. However, numbers don't lie in this test.
 
Kind of fun little video there. Pretty interesting results
 
-CRW- said:
I like the video, but I wish the Pro V1/X weren't always considered the standard. I think for numbers driven and or die-hard golfers, the pro v1/x aren't the standard.

I would like to see more numbers from all the other great options out there - Srixon, TM, Bridgestone, etc.
Click to expand...

This.

Let's get the Q-Star Tour up there and see how those puppies fly.
 
tpluff said:
It would be so cool to get an hour or so on a launch monitor and do a fairly comprehensive test like this involving as many balls as possible. I think the results could be eye opening, and not so comparing a 2 piece surlyn to a 4 piece urethane at 1 specific mph. Nonetheless, I will do my diligence in picking my ball this year based on the supply I have.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It's 1 shot per ball. Doesn't really mean much to me.
 
Interesting video, sort of supports Callaway's marketing of increased ball speed with the CS/CSX. I would though would have like to see Srixon and Taylormade balls compared to see a true comparison. I don't think an old Hogan club made any difference as I would think the same swing with newer technology would result in the same differential from ball to ball. As mentioned earlier, these guys all appear to have very good repeatable swings and hit the ball pretty good as evidenced by there numbers.
 
kevin81002 said:
It's 1 shot per ball. Doesn't really mean much to me.
Click to expand...
This definitely is NOT a test by the book of the scientific method. But, it brings up an interesting conversation and idea for a test.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
tpluff said:
This definitely is NOT a test by the book of the scientific method. But, it brings up an interesting conversation and idea for a test.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Definitely. And I didn't intend to quote your post. Was a general response to the video. Hit the wrong tab. :D
 
kevin81002 said:
Definitely. And I didn't intend to quote your post. Was a general response to the video. Hit the wrong tab. :D
Click to expand...
All in good conversation.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
tpluff said:
This definitely is NOT a test by the book of the scientific method. But, it brings up an interesting conversation and idea for a test.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Agree. Its interesting data but its far from a scientific test, especially since they know what ball they are hitting.
 
kevin81002 said:
It's 1 shot per ball. Doesn't really mean much to me.
Click to expand...

when the guy in red clearly mishit one, he pulled another ball in and was happy with the next swing. as good as these guys appear to be, i'm ok with a limited sample size.
 
tpluff said:
It would be so cool to get an hour or so on a launch monitor and do a fairly comprehensive test like this involving as many balls as possible. I think the results could be eye opening, and not so comparing a 2 piece surlyn to a 4 piece urethane at 1 specific mph. Nonetheless, I will do my diligence in picking my ball this year based on the supply I have.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Let me know when you want to come visit. We can certainly set that test up. GC2, SKLZ Net, whichever balls you want. Oh and beers.
 
ddec said:
Let me know when you want to come visit. We can certainly set that test up. GC2, SKLZ Net, whichever balls you want. Oh and beers.
Click to expand...
Don't threaten me with a great time! :alien:

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Watched this last night in bed. Not surprised how poorly the Pro V1 performed....ive never liked it. not surprised how well to new Callaway performed either comparatively.
 
tpluff said:
Don't threaten me with a great time! :alien:

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Fine. No net, you have to retrieve all balls hit.
 
ddec said:
Fine. No net, you have to retrieve all balls hit.
Click to expand...
You sure know how make a sweet deal even sweeter. Just a short trip across the great lakes!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
It would have been really interesting to see the Trackman screen shot for the shots with the Chrome Soft balls (both versions) to see if the spin rates were lower than the Pro V1/V1X as well.

Callaway is taking this line of marketing and using it in their demos for the new Chrome Soft balls. Hit the new balls against other balls and see what the ball speed is compared to the other balls. As I have said in another thread on here, it's what TaylorMade did last year in their TV ads for TP5/TP5X, JDay had a line that was something like "who wouldn't want 10 extra yards?" The knock on those balls from some was that they didn't spin as much as other premium balls. That's why I'm wondering if the distance gains that Callaway will be promoting are a combination of higher ball speed and lower spin, or if they were able to keep the spin numbers up with irons and wedges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top