generating good greens stoppng power (spin) and relation to surlyn vs urethane.

I been really giving this a lot of thought lately. Wasn't sure if this should be in the ball section but fwiw it is also about our golf and play in general as well as balls.

I have done experimenting with different balls. One long term experiment was a 330rx vs an e6. And lately I been switching (through several rounds now) between Wilson duo urethane, e6 , and B330rx.

And much like when I did the experiment with the 330rx vs e6 I am finding similar results with the Wilson staff U ball.

I just do not see any gains at all as for greens checking (let alone spin back) between any these balls. This isn't one round but this through several rounds switching balls continuously hole by hole.

When greens are very hard (and ball marks are not made) I find all 3 balls witll stop and/or roll out similarly. And when (like today) the course greens were soft, I found all 3 balls had very same amount of stoppage/checkup and/or roll out.

This has lead me to believe (and fwiw something I already kind of always felt). That checkup or stopping power (for lack of better term) is far more about generating higher spin via good contact, a clean ball and clean club head, and swing speed than it is about the ball. And fwiw less about AOA than what people believe it is.

Im not saying that for one who generates good spin they don't then benefit some more from a urethane ball to accomplish this. But what I am suggesting is that if one does not generate higher spin (or high enough spin) via the required condition to do so then the urethane ball cover isn't doing much anyway. This is something I have paid great attention to as Ive used surlyn ball (e6) and also compared to urethane covered balls. And im not concluding this via one round of golf or a few holes but is something I've paid great attention to through long term playing and therefore many very similar shots played with the different balls vs my usually played surlyn covered e6.

For example on yesterdays round and also 2 other rounds this past week , the course I played had greens very hard. I switched religiously between 3 holes each with the Wilson U, then e6, than B330rx. Collectively had enough very similar shots with same clubs. Enough of them to see any differences. And found neither urethane balls any better as for rollin out (or not) than the surlyn ball did. All 3balls checked and/or rolled out extremely similarly.

Then todays round was on a softer greens course. The greens were not slow for puting but they were softer and pitch marks more easily made. Here again the surlyn ball checked up and/or rolled out extremely similar to both urethane balls with no noticeable difference. Over all everything checked up better on these softer greens but still no difference really at all between the balls. A good shot stayed put pretty well put with any of the balls just the same. And a not so good shot rolled out extremely similar as well.

And ive come to the same conclusions as for chipping and close pitching. An area of my game with a lot of improvemtn this season. Yet the urethane no more better ir worse than the surlyn (at least in the case of an e6). I know the only surlyn ball I am comparing here is the e6 which is a pretty good ball and so I don't know if results would be much different with cheaper surlyn balls than the e6. But none the less is still surlyn and not urethane soI think that part works well for what I am suggesting here.

I can only conclude its the player swing along with factors mentioned earlier (ss, clean ball and club, the strike) that truly determines stopping power far more than it is the urethane cover. And once a player has that stuff in is favor its only then that the urethane ball then offers anymore benefit vs a surlyn ball.

Too much text my head exploded, I'll try again later.

Technique is definitely paramount, but the urethane cover makes a giant difference. I remember testing out some urethane balls for this site... I put them against other urethane balls and then a surlyn ball for a benchmark... the difference was close to 3,000 RPM according to the LM... I can't vouch for the accuracy, but that was nearly double the spin on check shots with a 54* wedge

Plinyyounger said:

Too much text my head exploded, I'll try again later.

Click to expand...

sorry but it was a lot to get out.

rollin said:

sorry but it was a lot to get out.

Click to expand...

Lol, I'll read it without all the beers and it will be fine!

rallo said:

Technique is definitely paramount, but the urethane cover makes a giant difference. I remember testing out some urethane balls for this site... I put them against other urethane balls and then a surlyn ball for a benchmark... the difference was close to 3,000 RPM according to the LM... I can't vouch for the accuracy, but that was nearly double the spin on check shots with a 54* wedge

Click to expand...

yes ok but did that translate to holding better on the course and live playing? I would think it does. But not what I seen between the balls a I have used.

Yesterday I had 2 exact shots on 2 different holes. Was actuallu hole 2 and hole 4.
Both shots were about 85 yrds to the pin. Greesn were hard. Bith shots hit well with my sw, High and steep and to within about 10 feet left of pon. One e6 the other duo U and both balls rolled out extacky the same pretty far back about 30' foot away putts I had to attempt. Same club, same shots, well struck yet same result yet one urethane and one syrlyn.

Today on softer greens I again had a couple sw from 80ish yardage. Well struck high and soft and on target and both balls were withn about 3 feet of pitch marks. So in either case I found almost identical results.

But fwiw I probably don't generate the higher spins required for the very firm greens and therefore neither ball checks up really well.

Around the greens where I'm an aggressive short game player is where I see the urethane cover perform. Any urethane vs any surlyn ball is a difference of feet when it comes to stopping power.

Also, I'm a long ball hitter and wedge out of the rough a lot, I find the urethane to knuckle a lot less out of those types of lies.

Since urethane balls are down to $20 a dozen I'll just stick with em. They got me down to a 2 handicap since moving to them so I have confidence in what they do for my game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

To get the most out of a urethane ball you have to have the correct swing for it and receptive greens. I tend to spin the ball a decent amount and during the hot Texas summers I get almost no spin on the rock hard greens. But when the greens are softer like today after a night of rain the ball checks very well for me. I come from the days of balata and remember those things chechked like crazy.

rollin said:

yes ok but did that translate to holding better on the course and live playing?

Today on softer greens I again had a couple sw from 80ish yardage. Well struck high and soft and on target and both balls were withn about 3 feet of pitch marks. So in either case I found almost identical results.

But fwiw I probably don't generate the higher spins required for the very firm greens and therefore neither ball checks up really well.

Click to expand...

As far as tangible difference between surlyn and urethane during a live round? For me yes, and I know everyone's individual mileage may vary. I have to flight the ball much higher to hit my spots with a surlyn ball.

Also, for me, I notice the performance more on very fast greens, as that it where I can't keep a surlyn ball close

I absolutely see a difference. While I'm not one to put a ton of spin on approaches as far as backing balls up, urethane balls check nicely vs surlyn rolling out on me. I've also tested side by side with very telling results.

Like rollin said, much has to do with swing as well as the contact quality on top of the ball cover.

Urethane still king when it comes to spin. My prove came from the 65 yards 64* pm wedge, that's 75-80%. I tested on several holes at my club. Fast, smooth, but spongy green that would hold. I went with the most spinning shot mid trajectory. Plus from my ES14 numbers gives me the max spin( theory of course, it's not trackman) around 7400-9800 rpm.

Best performers are pro v 1, callaway chrome soft, rule 35 blue, Nike platinum tour, hogan apex 4 piece. All would hop and spin back a foot or two. Pro V spin back the most, first few shots it spins back 5-6 foot.

Surlyn balls are not bad, I tried the e6, supersoft 55, nitro, volvik, callaway solaire and a few other found balls. It's oddly weird for some of them because they feel really soft but fail to dance on the green. They all do great job of stopping one hop and stop.

On full swing both are pretty close, though spinning back even a little bit is pretty cool. The big difference between the 2 is 25 yard chip. I used the same wedge. All of the urethane flew low and bit hard a little release, compare to the surlyn, most bit and release, the nitro release the most.

Overall I think urethane is the way to go for me knowing that it would suck back(even if it does not sometimes), help me to be more aggressive on the approach and encourage me to throw it pass the hole.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the surlyn balls I tried out, they are in my bag after all. It offer 75-80% of the performance of the urethane balls at half the price so they are much better bang for the bucks. Unless you buy preowned balls then why not get the best ball you can play.

generating good greens stoppng power (spin) and relation to surlyn vs urethane.

I get a very noticeable increase in spin with almost all urethane golf balls.

I think the landing angle has just as much to do with it and you won't be able to figure those numbers on a course. Also have to take in consideration the green angle. I imagine a ball landing on a green that is 5% slope from back to front will have the balls being very similar but if you tested it on a green sloping away from you the difference will probably be pretty big.

I think a huge aspect that's being missed here is golf ball compression. I think the cover is extremely important around the green for chips/bunker play etc but the further from the green you get the less cover material matters and the more compression matters.

Obviously a clean strike will always be a huge factor, and launch/peak height/descent will play a role as well. I compared a Duo U to a Z-Star XV on 100 yard wedge shots and the difference was very noticeable for me - the XV stopped considerably quicker despite both having urethane covers.

This graphic really says it all.

Project(a) is a solid ball.

the thing is (that I am thinking) is not that more spin isn't generated with urethane. I think that is known fact.
But my theory is that its about how much more spin for that person is where the difference lies. In other words is it enough spin to then really gain? A low spinner off his irons should increase spin with the urethane but still may not be enough increase to overcome the force of the ball landing yet still continue to spin backwards after that impact.

I look at the physics of it. When force is applied to an object and equal force is applied in the opposite direction. This is why (I think) when a ball hits the green it then can spin the opposite way after impact...hence a release and also roll out. But when/if one generated excessive spin there is enough spin there to now overcome.. The ball will hit, loose some rotation but release some of that energy via a bounce up but then still have enough extra spin to continue to spin backwards, hence check up and/or back up. That requires a whole heck of a lot of spin along with a good angle of descent. That's just something most people are not able to do even with some extra spin of the urethane ball. They get more spin but still not enough to create that result.

I theorize this is why some people will see the benefit and many wont. Those higher generators of spin will benefit. Those who are on the borderline may also reap some benefit to the extra spin. But I would bet most amateurs are simply still not quite there even with the extra spin.

Sure, similarly why slower swing speeds won't gain the full benefit of a ball that was designed for high swing speeds.

Doesn't at all mean the ball won't work for them, just perhaps not as well as if their swings were faster.

Quality of contact is key for spin. If my contact is even slightly off with a wedge approach, characteristics as to the ball's response on the green is affected. Perhaps not completely to the negative but indeed different.

If I saw similar results with both covers, I'd be darn happy to play the cheaper balls. Remove all logos and they're just dimpled golf balls. Similar yet potentially vastly different, to what extreme or none at all is purely player dependent.

leftshot said:

This graphic really says it all.

Click to expand...

That graphic is on short game shots, where cover matters most. People should check out he THP radio show with Jeff Brunski on golf ball creation and in it he breaks down what causes what to a golf ball. Spin, speed, etc.

ArmyGolf said:

I think a huge aspect that's being missed here is golf ball compression. I think the cover is extremely important around the green for chips/bunker play etc but the further from the green you get the less cover material matters and the more compression matters.

Obviously a clean strike will always be a huge factor, and launch/peak height/descent will play a role as well. I compared a Duo U to a Z-Star XV on 100 yard wedge shots and the difference was very noticeable for me - the XV stopped considerably quicker despite both having urethane covers.

Click to expand...

Someone has been learning. Padowan you are.

fwiw ....as my swing improves via my series of lessons (which is finally happening) I'm actually hoping I find better greens checking from urethane. Its why I been intentionally doing what I have been and using the different balls. So my intent here is not to try to discredit urethane and in fact is to try to come up with more benefit (via better results) to want to always use one. But thus far (and granted...only with the balls Ive compared) I'm not seeing one that says this. And certainly not in any dominating fashion.

As someone mentioned , it seems price of some urethane balls can be had for good rates now and that is a plus so long as the other characteristic's of the ball also works well with our individual game. So that part can sort of make the choice a bit easier. But there is still longevity issue between the 2 covers. No doubt the surlyn simply takes a beating much better. Especially if the occasional errant play is well within ones inconsistencies often enough where enough msihits,, cartpaths, trees etc are to be dealt with. But longevity is I suppose another separate topic.

But I would imagine the final finishing/coating product on the cover also affects this topic as well as perhaps different grades of urethane. I mean I can see the staff duo U scuffs and stains easier than the 330rx does. Especially staining. The greens and browns stains just require far more rubbing to get off the ball. A surprising amount imo. So just perhaps the thinnest final layer on the ball (if there is one) or subtle differences in urethane itself between makers plays a big role for this topic too.

When you talk about check or rollout, are you looking at full swings into greens, or partial swings around the greens? It's the shorter stuff where I really notice the difference after switching to a Urethane ball, especially on an open faced pitch or something.

For full swings I read somewhere that a land angle of 45* is optimal for stopping power on a green and for every degree less than 45* is about 2-3 yards of roll out. Club head speed and ability to achieve around optimal peak height will play a roll in this. Iirc someone would need club head speed of 85+ with a 6i to be able to get the chance at ability to get the ball to come on at that 45* angle.

mpeterson said:

When you talk about check or rollout, are you looking at full swings into greens, or partial swings around the greens? It's the shorter stuff where I really notice the difference after switching to a Urethane ball, especially on an open faced pitch or something.

Click to expand...

Funny thing at Bridgestone u back in 2015 we were on one of the holes and JB happened to be at that green. Greggdrews had a bunker shot iirc around the green and when the ball came out it had some check on it and JB commented right away and "they say you can't spin an e6" which is a surlyn ball. But like you I notice a difference more around the green and on knockdown shots than on full swings

As a higher hdcp with a mid 90's driver SS, I definitely see a difference around the greens with urethane vs surlyn. Last year I started playing the Project (a) on and off and noticed a lot more bite around the greens vs the e6, Duo, or Softfli.

This year, playing the Q-Star Tour, I've seen a *lot* more bit around the greens than last year. Same clubs, same swing (mostly) and a big difference on chips and pitches. Feel off the putter is better with that ball as well.