We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Matching Golf Ball Compression and Swing Speed

SuperStroke
Frederic said:
That is what I thought. Very much east cost focus with a few foray in the middle of the country.
Have you thought of having another van and another team to focus more on the west side?
BTW, I am not looking for a job :bashful:, but I am sure it would be a great gig for anyone in love with golf.
Click to expand...

It is expensive enough with one Tour Van. While we can certainly travel, one is able to travel as well to any of our events including one of the best demo days in the world at the Ultimate Weekend of Golf. If one does not want to travel, I recommend looking at this thread.

http://www.thehackersparadise.com/f...P-Invitational-Series-Where-Would-You-Like-It
 
JB said:
It is expensive enough with one Tour Van. While we can certainly travel, one is able to travel as well to any of our events including one of the best demo days in the world at the Ultimate Weekend of Golf. If one does not want to travel, I recommend looking at this thread.

http://www.thehackersparadise.com/f...P-Invitational-Series-Where-Would-You-Like-It
Click to expand...

I'd love to travel there so long as my schedule allows it.
Where and when is this Ultimate Weekend of golf you speak of?
would I get a chance to try different equipment there?
Do I need to buy something other than cover my travel cost?
 
I am thinking that until you get to single digit handicap the ball you play is the least of our worries I have scored low rounds with top flight rocks and pro v
its chip and putting that us high handicappers need to work on maybe using the same ball all the time for consistent fell would also help. 12hcp.
 
golf red said:
I am thinking that until you get to single digit handicap the ball you play is the least of our worries I have scored low rounds with top flight rocks and pro v
its chip and putting that us high handicappers need to work on maybe using the same ball all the time for consistent fell would also help. 12hcp.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. Switching to the Srixon Q-star when I was a 18 handicap was a huge contributor to getting down to a 13/14 this past summer/fall.
 
ArmyGolf said:
I respectfully disagree. Switching to the Srixon Q-star when I was a 18 handicap was a huge contributor to getting down to a 13/14 this past summer/fall.
Click to expand...

What ball were you playing before and what about the Q-Star has improved your game? Also, what else did you try?

Thanks.
 
I used to play whatever I had in the bag, anything from a banged up Dunlop to a ladies ball to a Pro V1. I then had a brief stint with the Noodle long and soft which I really liked, but I knew there was better out there and I was really curious to try some more.
I tried out the Srixon Q-star, the Bridgestone E6 and the Titleist NXT.

With the driver I had similar distance with all 3, with the E6 being the straightest, followed by the Q-star. This gravitated me towards the E6 for a number of rounds but I just couldn't hold greens with the darn thing unless I approached with a wedge. I also thought it felt a bit harsh and heavy.
The Titleist NXT was just too much of a side-spinner for me with the driver for me to give it a thorough evaluation, so I don't really have much of an opinion on this ball.
The Q-star is just an awesome all around ball. Straight and long with the driver, feels soft to me with every club, and has enough bite around the greens for me to really work with it. Balls that landed on the green, stayed on the green with most of my irons. And it's affordable for me, I didn't try any balls that cost more than $30 for 12 because I was losing too many.

I'm sure once I develop a more consistent and accurate swing with the driver that I could move up to a urethane covered ball for much more bite on and around the greens, but for now I need the help of a less "spinny" ball off the driver.
 
JB said:
You really dont need a physicist to study it. Take two compression balls, put them on a launch monitor and swing. You will see a difference.

. Take any brand you want, get fit for them and you will see a difference in numbers in the different compressioned golf balls.
Click to expand...

For my curiosity I been somewhat searching for more answers to this topic. Actually searched here as well and thought to resurface this thread. This topic debate can be found on the web and is just never really conclusive. I do believe you when you say there will be a difference. Your experiences don't lie to you. However there is sort of another side to what your saying and its something that still leaves some questions for a bit more precise answer. Here is what I mean.

You state that one can take different compression balls and will have different results. But what I think the real question is that might better suit an answer to what many people often ask is this - What about hitting the same ball with different swing speeds. Or hitting the different balls with an exact same swing speed all done with a robot.

lets take a very soft ball like an e-6 and a harder ball like a pro-v or since I used Bridgestone who does claim compression and swingspeed really do matter lets take that e-6 and the b330 side by side. Hit all shots with a robot and come up with precise answers. Set the speed at say 93 and hit both many times. Than perhaps 102 and hit both many times, than 110 and do the same. This imo would give a definite answer as to how much the compression matters. Not only for one ball vs another, but also for each ball vs itself at the different swing speeds. that's the part which mostly (to me) goes sort of unanswered.

The robot hits a number of balls each at the first slower speed and we would clearly see if the softer ball goes further and the same for higher speed. But
we would also see and be able to compare each ball against itself at higher and lower swing speeds and see if the claim that a ball is designed for better distance for only slower or faster speeds holds water. If an e6 drops or doesn't gain distance at 110 vs what it did at 102 than the ball is clearly made for lower speeds. If the ball is over compressing (as they would put it as a negative) at higher speeds we should then see a loss of distance (or at least no gain) with the higher swing speed. No?

I mean instead of this debate , why not (I mean the manufacturers) just go out and prove the point one way or the other with hard fact. titleist says one thing and bridge says another. Why not show robotic results for testing and proving any claims? Hit (via robot) a b330 vs an e6 and also compare each ball vs against itself at different speeds. It really just seems so simple to do instead of having people question things and/or imply doubt.

There are just far too many factors (variables) for why/how a ball works better for one person and his/her swing vs another. I assume you would agree with that part. But when a specific claim that one produces lower compression balls specifically for slower swings they should then imo be able to prove that via a precise test and not just because Joe, Dan , and Cheryl had better results with ball "X". What did the robot do with ball x,y,and z and at speeds x,y,and z? This would imo work to prove or disprove these claims one way or the other No?
 
rollin said:
For my curiosity I been somewhat searching for more answers to this topic. Actually searched here as well and thought to resurface this thread. This topic debate can be found on the web and is just never really conclusive. I do believe you when you say there will be a difference. Your experiences don't lie to you. However there is sort of another side to what your saying and its something that still leaves some questions for a bit more precise answer. Here is what I mean.

You state that one can take different compression balls and will have different results. But what I think the real question is that might better suit an answer to what many people often ask is this - What about hitting the same ball with different swing speeds. Or hitting the different balls with an exact same swing speed all done with a robot.

lets take a very soft ball like an e-6 and a harder ball like a pro-v or since I used Bridgestone who does claim compression and swingspeed really do matter lets take that e-6 and the b330 side by side. Hit all shots with a robot and come up with precise answers. Set the speed at say 93 and hit both many times. Than perhaps 102 and hit both many times, than 110 and do the same. This imo would give a definite answer as to how much the compression matters. Not only for one ball vs another, but also for each ball vs itself at the different swing speeds. that's the part which mostly (to me) goes sort of unanswered.

The robot hits a number of balls each at the first slower speed and we would clearly see if the softer ball goes further and the same for higher speed. But
we would also see and be able to compare each ball against itself at higher and lower swing speeds and see if the claim that a ball is designed for better distance for only slower or faster speeds holds water. If an e6 drops or doesn't gain distance at 110 vs what it did at 102 than the ball is clearly made for lower speeds. If the ball is over compressing (as they would put it as a negative) at higher speeds we should then see a loss of distance (or at least no gain) with the higher swing speed. No?

I mean instead of this debate , why not (I mean the manufacturers) just go out and prove the point one way or the other with hard fact. titleist says one thing and bridge says another. Why not show robotic results for testing and proving any claims? Hit (via robot) a b330 vs an e6 and also compare each ball vs against itself at different speeds. It really just seems so simple to do instead of having people question things and/or imply doubt.

There are just far too many factors (variables) for why/how a ball works better for one person and his/her swing vs another. I assume you would agree with that part. But when a specific claim that one produces lower compression balls specifically for slower swings they should then imo be able to prove that via a precise test and not just because Joe, Dan , and Cheryl had better results with ball "X". What did the robot do with ball x,y,and z and at speeds x,y,and z? This would imo work to prove or disprove these claims one way or the other No?
Click to expand...

I'm not positive what you are getting at with this, but I hit higher compression balls further than low compression balls off my woods. It's been shown to me on launch monitors and on course. Mid irons on down to wedges seem to be fairly consistent on distance no matter what ball it is. That's why balls are fit to your driver swing, because your max speed is the one that's going to make the biggest impact. Not sure what more you need the companies to do there.
 
cbaker2882 said:
I'm not positive what you are getting at with this, but I hit higher compression balls further than low compression balls off my woods. It's been shown to me on launch monitors and on course. Mid irons on down to wedges seem to be fairly consistent on distance no matter what ball it is. That's why balls are fit to your driver swing, because your max speed is the one that's going to make the biggest impact. Not sure what more you need the companies to do there.
Click to expand...

Bridgestone (and a number of people) claim low comp balls are for slower ss (below 105) because the softer ball is required in order to compress it enough. And conversely , the faster swing (above 105) will over compress the softer ball therefore lose some distance if used. So if a robot set at 99mph swing were to hit both balls the lower comp e6 should go further than a higher comp b330. And yet if the robot was set to 109 the b330 should then go further than the e6. I say robot because it eliminates the inconsistent variables of people. And also does not favor one persons swing over another. Not only can this imo be used to gain a more precise answer, but also they can hit each ball several times at different mph intervals. The balls travels results can be compared to each other as well as against themselves at the different swing speeds. this would then imo precisely answer whether or not what they claim is actually the only true case.

different companies are claiming the opposite things. One says firmly that compression should follow suit with swingspeed and the other firmly say it shouldn't matter. So if either are completely convinced of their claim then ............., take a robot, and test the balls at the same and at different speeds , and lets see which claim is correct. If a claim is made that a given (softer) ball will over compress and lose distance with a higher ss than lets see that demonstrated via a robot. If a claim says a given ball is too hard and cant compress enough and will lose distance if hit at slower speed, then lets see that demonstrated.

we have the number one golf ball company in golf history saying one thing and a very highly respected other company saying the compete opposite. Why would this be so hard to prove , and why wouldn't they want to prove the other wrong.
Either one or the other of them is lying because they cant both be right, or neither of them really knows the truth for sure in which case they are making claims they do not really know are true which is the same as lying. I am not marketing bashing here at all because its not the point but find the whole soft/harder ball thing interesting and simply curious to know for sake of better knowledge. So who is right?
 
rollin said:
Bridgestone (and a number of people) claim low comp balls are for slower ss (below 105) because the softer ball is required in order to compress it enough. And conversely , the faster swing (above 105) will over compress the softer ball therefore lose some distance if used. So if a robot set at 99mph swing were to hit both balls the lower comp e6 should go further than a higher comp b330. And yet if the robot was set to 109 the b330 should then go further than the e6. I say robot because it eliminates the inconsistent variables of people. And also does not favor one persons swing over another. Not only can this imo be used to gain a more precise answer, but also they can hit each ball several times at different mph intervals. The balls travels results can be compared to each other as well as against themselves at the different swing speeds. this would then imo precisely answer whether or not what they claim is actually the only true case.

different companies are claiming the opposite things. One says firmly that compression should follow suit with swingspeed and the other firmly say it shouldn't matter. So if either are completely convinced of their claim then ............., take a robot, and test the balls at the same and at different speeds , and lets see which claim is correct. If a claim is made that a given (softer) ball will over compress and lose distance with a higher ss than lets see that demonstrated via a robot. If a claim says a given ball is too hard and cant compress enough and will lose distance if hit at slower speed, then lets see that demonstrated.

we have the number one golf ball company in golf history saying one thing and a very highly respected other company saying the compete opposite. Why would this be so hard to prove via consistent mechanical stats. and why wouldn't they want to prove the other wrong.
Either one or the other of them is lying because they cant both be right, or neither of them really knows the truth for sure in which case they are making claims they do not really know are true which is the same as lying. I am not marketing bashing here at all because its not the point but find the whole soft/harder ball thing interesting and simply curious to know. So who is right?
Click to expand...

Well...my real world data both on monitor and on course show I lose distance on soft golf balls compared to the higher compression balls on my woods/hybrid/long irons. About 6/7 iron down through wedges it doesn't seem to matter what ball I am using in terms of distance. It's pretty consistent with everything I have tried. The distance loss is most noticeable on my driver, and FWIW I have one of those 105+ swing speeds.
 
cbaker2882 said:
Well...my real world data both on monitor and on course show I lose distance on soft golf balls compared to the higher compression balls on my woods/hybrid/long irons. About 6/7 iron down through wedges it doesn't seem to matter what ball I am using in terms of distance. It's pretty consistent with everything I have tried. The distance loss is most noticeable on my driver, and FWIW I have one of those 105+ swing speeds.
Click to expand...

interesting, and fwiw my ss is very similar at 104 (drop 2 from last year lol) but so I am right there with ya on that fence. Anyway when you say noticeable with driver, what kind of yardage you referring to. 10ish or more like 20/25ish?

And even besides your answer we must remember that (as I have alluded to) your talking different golf balls with different characteristics (not just different compression) that also react differently to your specific angle of attack, face angle, swing path, the shaft flex and kick etc, etc,....many things and not just swingspeed may very well be the reason for distance loss for you with one ball vs another. Put another persons different variables in place even though same swing speed and the results may be opposite. Is compression the only reason for the distance difference you experience or could it be all the other characteristics about each the specific balls combined with your swing variables that did or didn't work better (distance wise) for you? Perhaps the other person at same speed would found them longer. According to titlesist that would be possible but according to bridge it wouldn't be possible. So the question goes on lol. Anyway thanks for entertaining this conversation with me, and again what was that amount of noticeable distance?
 
rollin said:
interesting, and fwiw my ss is very similar at 104 (drop 2 from last year lol) but so I am right there with ya on that fence. Anyway when you say noticeable with driver, what kind of yardage you referring to. 10ish or more like 20/25ish?

And even besides your answer we must remember that (as I have alluded to) your talking different golf balls with different characteristics (not just different compression) that also react differently to your specific angle of attack, face angle, swing path, the shaft flex and kick etc, etc,....many things and not just swingspeed may very well be the reason for distance loss for you with one ball vs another. Put another persons different variables in place even though same swing speed and the results may be opposite. Is compression the only reason for the distance difference you experience or could it be all the other characteristics about each the specific balls combined with your swing variables that did or didn't work better (distance wise) for you? Perhaps the other person at same speed would found them longer. According to titlesist that would be possible but according to bridge it wouldn't be possible. So the question goes on lol. Anyway thanks for entertaining this conversation with me, and again what was that amount of noticeable distance?
Click to expand...

It was probably around 10 yards depending on ball. My Bridgestone fitting had ~8/9 yard difference between the Srixon Q star and B330-S
 
rollin said:
Bridgestone (and a number of people) claim low comp balls are for slower ss (below 105) because the softer ball is required in order to compress it enough. And conversely , the faster swing (above 105) will over compress the softer ball therefore lose some distance if used. So if a robot set at 99mph swing were to hit both balls the lower comp e6 should go further than a higher comp b330. And yet if the robot was set to 109 the b330 should then go further than the e6. I say robot because it eliminates the inconsistent variables of people. And also does not favor one persons swing over another. Not only can this imo be used to gain a more precise answer, but also they can hit each ball several times at different mph intervals. The balls travels results can be compared to each other as well as against themselves at the different swing speeds. this would then imo precisely answer whether or not what they claim is actually the only true case.

different companies are claiming the opposite things. One says firmly that compression should follow suit with swingspeed and the other firmly say it shouldn't matter. So if either are completely convinced of their claim then ............., take a robot, and test the balls at the same and at different speeds , and lets see which claim is correct. If a claim is made that a given (softer) ball will over compress and lose distance with a higher ss than lets see that demonstrated via a robot. If a claim says a given ball is too hard and cant compress enough and will lose distance if hit at slower speed, then lets see that demonstrated.

we have the number one golf ball company in golf history saying one thing and a very highly respected other company saying the compete opposite. Why would this be so hard to prove , and why wouldn't they want to prove the other wrong.
Either one or the other of them is lying because they cant both be right, or neither of them really knows the truth for sure in which case they are making claims they do not really know are true which is the same as lying. I am not marketing bashing here at all because its not the point but find the whole soft/harder ball thing interesting and simply curious to know for sake of better knowledge. So who is right?
Click to expand...

The number 1 golf ball company as you call them just reduced the compression of their golf balls for the latest release. Why would they do that if it didnt matter.
One company is actually saying only part of that, which is get fit and find the right compression, spin and launch. The other company is saying none of it matters, buy this because its the best. I am not speaking of the quality, because both make a quality product.

Its easy...Go ahead and test for yourself and see what happens. As for why a company "doesnt do this"...What do you think the entire Bridgestone ball fitting team is? They show each golfer first hand what matters both with their product and other products.
 
Last edited:
JB said:
Its easy...Go ahead and test for yourself and see what happens. As for why a company "doesnt do this"...What do you think the entire Bridgestone ball fitting team is? They show each golfer first hand what matters both with their product and other products.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Very easy to see which ball company is taking launch monitors out into the real world and letting real golfers do real fittings hitting multiple manufactures balls. All while showing you the numbers. Bridgestone.

You don't see the other company doing that.
 
I have done several ball fittings with Bridgestone and have compared to harder balls (prov1x and Srixon z star) and each time the Bridgestone won out for better dispersion, lower spin and gained some distance.

i truly believe compression matters and have watched some playing partners switch to lower compression balls and have seen their misses become dramatically reduced.
 
JB said:
The number 1 golf ball company as you call them just reduced the compression of their golf balls for the latest release. Why would they do that if it didnt matter.
One company is actually saying only part of that, which is get fit and find the right compression, spin and launch. The other company is saying none of it matters, buy this because its the best. I am not speaking of the quality, because both make a quality product.

Its easy...Go ahead and test for yourself and see what happens. As for why a company "doesnt do this"...What do you think the entire Bridgestone ball fitting team is? They show each golfer first hand what matters both with their product and other products.
Click to expand...


Referring to Titleist as number one was only used for sake of implying that here we have two dominant ball companies (leaders I assume) saying two different things. I have no allegiance to Titleist balls, in fact I happen to use Bridgestone.

I don't doubt that compression matters. But it also must be the materials and construction of a given ball and not just compression that would dictate why one ball travels further than another for a given player swing speed. And also of course combined with all his/her swing characteristics, not just swing speed alone.

From what I understand, one of the parts of this whole logic about distance and compression is that a faster swing will "over compress" a low compression ball and a slower swing will under compress a high compression ball and both scenarios will result in less distance.

But I would speculate that it just depends on a given balls' materials and construction and not just compression. I would add (from what I have read and searched) that a balls' ability to rebound (return back into shape) has a lot to do with its energy absorbed and than released as for how far it will travel regardless of how much it compresses. That would not just be true of golf balls but really for any object.

This would imply that a ball can be made with lower compression yet still (when hit with a higher ss) fly further than a higher compression ball hit with the same higher ss. BTW -None of this is anything I am dictating but just trying to make sense of.
Conversely the opposite could also happen, where as a higher compression ball (with given construction & materials) can fly further than a low compression one when both hit at a lower ss. Again, dependent on the M&C and the balls ability absorb and than release energy. Different balls with different materials and construction may travel the same distance off of the same swing speed even though different compression rating.

So with that in mind, just because a given ball is one of lower compression, it shouldn't "only" mean it then has to travel shorter vs a high comp ball when both hit with faster swings, nor should it have to mean it will travel further than a high comp ball when both hit with a slower swing. The affect of distance loss resulting form over compressing and/or under compressing a ball (via swing speed) would only be relevant to a given balls' ability to rebound based on its M&C and not necessarily its compression rating. With all that's said, (if any of it is correct) than a blanket statement that says low comp is for slow swings and high comp is for fast swings and also says that using the balls the opposite way around will hurt distance (all based on over and/or under compressing) would not really be so correct.

I may not be correct with this but I hope I at least got it out where it makes some sense.
 
there's a part of me that feels like one of the two (or perhaps both) companies know the answer regarding compression, but for whatever the reason the data doesn't support all of their arguments so they haven't used it as a marketing tool. i have no reason to believe this other than there is SO MUCH MONEY to be made, the cost of the test seems to be immaterial with respect to the potential market share gains/retention if the results do support a claim.

but in the end, here's what i would prefer: take compression out of the whole discussion, and just show people that they need to get fit. period. that's the point here, isn't it? we are not robots, so who cares what a robot proves? we are snowflakes, and fortunately there are myriad options out there to help us find what works for us. i can't think of anyone who would fit themselves into a particular driver shaft based on robotic data; they'd do it based on getting fit to their specific swing characteristics. so shouldn't we do the same with golf balls?
 
I had this discussion with my dad about a month ago, when he started referring to balls as 90lb balls and 100lb balls. I informed him that I don't think anyone uses that terminology anymore since we got off wound balls, and there is a pretty wide array of compressions out there.

Maybe I'm wrong, but with the way balls are made now, isn't compression just one of many factors that determines ball flight and distance now? I kind of view it like graphite shafts. As I understand it, the companies can make a super light weight shaft that's as stiff as rebar. So just like you can't rely solely on weight to determine shaft characteristics, I'm not sure one can rely solely on compression to determine golf ball characteristics. But again, I could be totally wrong, so someone can feel free to correct me.

~Rock
 
caeleric said:
there's a part of me that feels like one of the two (or perhaps both) companies know the answer regarding compression, but for whatever the reason the data doesn't support all of their arguments so they haven't used it as a marketing tool. i have no reason to believe this other than there is SO MUCH MONEY to be made, the cost of the test seems to be immaterial with respect to the potential market share gains/retention if the results do support a claim.

but in the end, here's what i would prefer: take compression out of the whole discussion, and just show people that they need to get fit. period. that's the point here, isn't it? we are not robots, so who cares what a robot proves? we are snowflakes, and fortunately there are myriad options out there to help us find what works for us. i can't think of anyone who would fit themselves into a particular driver shaft based on robotic data; they'd do it based on getting fit to their specific swing characteristics. so shouldn't we do the same with golf balls?
Click to expand...

But no I would say that's not really the only point here.
You would be correct in saying, and is something most including I have alluded to is that yes, we are all different and all our swing characteristics would have to play a roll in which ball works best for us. But this thread is about compression vs swing speed which also has to do with distance. There is two sides to this debate or two sides for what some are trying to understand and figure out.

I always look at things not just for believing what we are told and leaving well enough alone, but to try to understand why things do what they do. I always feel the better one can understand, the better it is for sake of knowledge and making your decisions. As well as just to satisfy a curiosity. knowledge is never a bad thing. In this case we have two sides claiming different things for compression. And to be honest , from what I've looked up not everyone agrees the general rule that low comp is for low speed and high for high. When I suggested robot testing its because it then does away with the changing variables and inconsistencies of people.

So imo why not take a robot and (lets say bridgestone does this) hit both a e6 (low comp ball) and a B330 (higher comp ball) both at 100mph and then do the same at 110 mph and the results (according to the compression general rule) should show the e6 went further at 100 but the B330 went further at 110.
But again there is that M&C thing because the two balls are made a little differently so it may not be just the compression rating causing the results.

So what about to take an e6 and hit it at 5mph increments. Say 90,95,100, 105 etc etc... We should of course see a distnace increase as the ball is hit faster but than as it begins to "over compress" (as the general rule says) at higher speeds we should see much smaller distance increase and/or eventually maybe even none or a drop off.

Or do the oposite test and take a B330 and hit it at 115, than 110, 105, 100 etc, etc.. Its a higher compression ball so the distance loss should drop much more from 100 to 95 than it did from 115 to 110 because (again according to the general rule) the higher compression ball would begin to under compress once below 105.
Or what about titleist on the other side of the debate? How about do the same with say a high comp prov and lower comp DTsolo.

Wouldn't something like that help prove one way or the other that higher ss does over compress the lower compression ball and a lower swing do the opposite to a higher compression ball? I mean no where do we look and see such a defined test result (at least that I can find).
We only see the results with the factors and changing variables and inconsistencies of people and each persons individual swing. That might be good enough to tell soemone which ball they will hit further. But imo it doesn't really confirm the general theory that talks of over and/or under compressing balls via the wrong ss and its relation to compression. Just something that kind of has me stuck is all :l
 
Dude,
THey do this every single week all over the country. Go get fit and watch exactly what happens.
If they went on TV and said "watch the robot prove it" nothing changes. Why? Because golfers know they dont swing like a robot.
See Robot testing done elsewhere and what products moved.

Bridgestone is saying yes we know it works, yes we have proven it works, now come out and we will show you exactly how.

Im not sure what is getting lost in translation here.
 
Bit off topic, Bridgestone is coming to a local course this Sunday, and in my fathers town. What clubs should I bring to the fitting, my entire bag?
 
Drew Z said:
Bit off topic, Bridgestone is coming to a local course this Sunday, and in my fathers town. What clubs should I bring to the fitting, my entire bag?
Click to expand...

They fit from the most violent impact, so bring a club to get warmed up, and then bring your driver. And have fun and tell them you are a THPer, they love THPers.
 
Drew Z said:
Bit off topic, Bridgestone is coming to a local course this Sunday, and in my fathers town. What clubs should I bring to the fitting, my entire bag?
Click to expand...

Bridgestone fits based off your driver from the ones I've done.
 
Regardless of brand, compression is the largest indicator of your maximum available distance. If it didn't matter, try playing a pro v at 110 compression in 60 degree weather vs a 40 compression e6 or supersoft, see if it still doesn't make a difference.

On a personal experience note, of all of the balls I've played and found and tested out (at least 30), the ones I found to favor my game repeatedly turned out to be around 75-85 compression. This is about as close to a blind test as I could've done, and the results speak for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top