Do new balls depreciate over time ??

[User101]

Don't be to upset I am sure you needed the practice

I was enjoying the firm conditions of the frost for the past two months, my 9 iron was going 220, dam the thaw.

Caddy dear boy why were you loobing up golf balls... on 2nd :rofl:

In prep for me you and spanky in the room together :thup:

so titleist said that balls you drag out the water are not very good so you should buy some new ones?

Imagine that

Like I said earlier, I take a company mans comments with a pinch oh sat.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

so titleist said that balls you drag out the water are not very good so you should buy some new ones?

Imagine that

Not strictly true. They said, irrespective of brand the performance would deteriorate and I've found than myself when using lake balls. One ball will perform ok and the next will be many yards behind and generally not perform.

 

[User20205]

Not strictly true. They said, irrespective of brand the performance would deteriorate and I've found than myself when using lake balls. One ball will perform ok and the next will be many yards behind and generally not perform.

Sitting in a pond for any length of time is bound to make a difference, surely? Not sure sitting in a box in cabbys spare room is the same, they should be ok after that? Unless of course he’s nae got the central heating, which in Dundee is likely

 

[User101]

I've found than myself when using lake balls. One ball will perform ok and the next will be many yards behind and generally not perform.

Sorry homie but you ain't getting away with that one. How can you compare, what data did you have to compare ? How can you tell the difference....one line for you....STRIKE IS KING ! btw, I'm not disagreeing with that pond balls are rubbish.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Sorry homie but you ain't getting away with that one. How can you compare, what data did you have to compare ? How can you tell the difference....one line for you....STRIKE IS KING ! btw, I'm not disagreeing with that pond balls are rubbish.

Yawn

 

[User101]

Yawn

Is that it, it that your defence on what you've just came away with ??

 

[SaintHacker]

Is that it, it that your defence on what you've just came away with ??

No, he's just saying what everyone is thinking when they read yet another of your inane attention seeking posts

 

[User20205]

Sorry homie but you ain't getting away with that one. How can you compare, what data did you have to compare ? How can you tell the difference....one line for you....STRIKE IS KING ! btw, I'm not disagreeing with that pond balls are rubbish.

I suspect what homer meant is that they don’t perform as expected. A decent strike yields poor results. Strike is king, but you want to get out what you put in to a ball?

 

[User101]

No, he's just saying what everyone is thinking when they read yet another of your inane attention seeking posts

What's attention seeking about that ? I've challenged his post, as I think what he's said is rubbish, I'm asking to back up what he's said, no sure what's attention seeking about that, but hey ho....

 

[SaintHacker]

Just a bit of banter sweetheart, don't be such a snowflake...

 

[User101]

I suspect what homer meant is that they don’t perform as expected. A decent strike yields poor results. Strike is king, but you want to get out what you put in to a ball?

Absolutely, but I'm just no quite having this poor performing without knowing what's happening as I honestly doubt in a blind test he'd be able to tell the difference.

 

[User101]

Just a bit of banter sweetheart, don't be such a snowflake...

Ok cupcake xx

 

[User20205]

Absolutely, but I'm just no quite having this poor performing without knowing what's happening as I honestly doubt in a blind test he'd be able to tell the difference.

Probably not, but if he knows they’re lake balls he won’t fancy them, therefore will look for reasons not to play them. Just like your prov1s may be ok but that one shot that doesn’t do what you expect will make you start questioning the ball?

I’d play them in a knock about but not a medal

 

[User101]

Probably not, but if he knows they’re lake balls he won’t fancy them, therefore will look for reasons not to play them. Just like your prov1s may be ok but that one shot that doesn’t do what you expect will make you start questioning the ball?

I’d play them in a knock about but not a medal

Again, absolutely, it's in the head, that's the very point, he's made out that he can tell the inconsistencies in them from one to another, I say he couldn't.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

So agree to disagree and move on

 

[HankMarvin]

The older balls will be fine and will not lose any of their performance but you may find they don't perform as well as the newest range (Pro V) as the manufacturer tells us year on year the performance of the new ball is better.

Is it ?

 

[road2ruin]

Played in Sunday’s comp, tee’d up on the 3rd with a brand new Chromesoft and sliced it wildly into the horses field never to be seen again.

Stuck down a provisional (always the optimist) which was a Pro V1 that I’d found in the bushes a week or so back and looked as though it’d been out a while. Stuck that even further right. Proof if proof we’re needed that older balls do perform worse than their newer compatriots.

 

[r0wly86]

Absolutely, but I'm just no quite having this poor performing without knowing what's happening as I honestly doubt in a blind test he'd be able to tell the difference.

I'm sure we had this discussion in the summer, I read some papers on subject (I studies Material Engineering including polymer technology at university).

There is a definite form of degradation on urethane whilst submerged in water. Not a huge amount when compared to other forms of stimulus.

Fluctuation of temperature will have a big affect, but we are talking large fluctuations that we won't normally see in lakes in this country. Also UV as an affect, UV coupled with water submersion will increase the degrading factor.

All of this is of course dependent on how long the ball has been in the lake or lost.

But all of that is just in terms of the polymer degrading, what also can happen a lot easier is the introduction of imperfection in the surface of the ball. This isn't degradation but will of course massively affect the aerodynamics of a ball as the dimple pattern will be altered.

As for your balls, polymers will of course degrade over time, but that time period is very long. As long as the Pro V1s haven't been in fluctuating temperatures or constantly under UV light then the urethane will be fine

 

[Imurg]

The older balls will be fine and will not lose any of their performance but you may find they don't perform as well as the newest range (Pro V) as the manufacturer tells us year on year the performance of the new ball is better.

Is it ?

I'd say it's different.
There will be a measurable difference in performance between one year's offering to the next - much like clubs.
Whether we, as mere mortals, can discern that difference is a whole discussion by itself.
For me, a ProV is a ProV and I'm unlikely to notice a hundred RPM here or there, a degree difference in height or anything else for that matter..

 

[HankMarvin]

Played in Sunday’s comp, tee’d up on the 3rd with a brand new Chromesoft and sliced it wildly into the horses field never to be seen again.

Stuck down a provisional (always the optimist) which was a Pro V1 that I’d found in the bushes a week or so back and looked as though it’d been out a while. Stuck that even further right. Proof if proof we’re needed that older balls do perform worse than their newer compatriots.

More down to the user than the ball one would say.