My Golf Spy - 2019 Ball Buyers Guide.

[Deleted member 16999]

They reckon it’s one of the most comprehensive tests they’ve done.
Some interesting findings.

https://mygolfspy.com/most-wanted-golf-ball/

 

[Imurg]

As someone on Twitter said...this isn't a one course meal..lots of digesting to do.
Some interesting findings, especially given what manufacturers tell us.
"A soft ball is a slow ball"
Mmmm...

 

[Deleted member 16999]

As someone on Twitter said...this isn't a one course meal..lots of digesting to do.
Some interesting findings, especially given what manufacturers tell us.
"A soft ball is a slow ball"
Mmmm...

It definitely needs to be read properly rather than “soundbites” always find the comments section on MGS interesting as they try to answer as many questions as they can.

 

[duncan mackie]

As someone on Twitter said...this isn't a one course meal..lots of digesting to do.
Some interesting findings, especially given what manufacturers tell us.
"A soft ball is a slow ball"
Mmmm...

With a driver....pretty even by 7i and with a wedge it's the other way round (from the article not my embelishment)

 

[duncan mackie]

It definitely needs to be read properly rather than “soundbites” always find the comments section on MGS interesting as they try to answer as many questions as they can.

True - then again many of the questions asked were answered in the article already 🤔

 

[Imurg]

With a driver....pretty even by 7i and with a wedge it's the other way round (from the article not my embelishment)

True.
But it's not just distance
Seems a softer ball spins less, hence the difference in distance from shorter clubs.
If a firmer ball goes further from the driver and spins more from the irons then you're going to be hitting a shorter iron into a green with more control..

 

[r0wly86]

that was a really interesting read, I'm someone with a fast swing speed, not sure about driver but my 6i was around 96mph which was faster than the tour average. I have always gone for soft feeling balls as I've put feel at the top of my wish list.

Funnily enough I found a Volvik the other day and played a few holes with it. It felt horrible playing with it after playing nothing but soft balls for years but I did notice I was getting a lot of spin from it.

I think I may give a high compression ball a go now, the Snell MTB-X looks good.

Also surprised to see Maxfli in there, haven't seen a Maxfli in donkeys years

 

[Imurg]

Maxfli name is owned by Dicks sporting goods in USA so they're probably an own brand type ball.
Doesn't seem bad though..

 

[robinthehood]

no real surprises there, a soft ball is a slow ball, don't use lake balls and fast SS guys hit it longer

 

[Orikoru]

As someone on Twitter said...this isn't a one course meal..lots of digesting to do.
Some interesting findings, especially given what manufacturers tell us.
"A soft ball is a slow ball"
Mmmm...

Yeah, that's put the cat among the pigeons for me. I've always gone for softer golf balls, but as my swing speed is perhaps just the slower side of average, they seem to be suggesting I shouldn't have bothered.

I'm guessing this is an American Site, as I've never heard of 'Inesis' or 'OnCore' which they have in the very good category.

 

[Grant85]

They reckon it’s one of the most comprehensive tests they’ve done.
Some interesting findings.

https://mygolfspy.com/most-wanted-golf-ball/

That is very interesting.

I am still a bit confused as to how the average golfer would test what ball is suited to them, short of having buttery hands that can feel the a few grains of sand on the ball, through a 9 iron.

Take away from that is probably to pick up some Pro V 1s from Watt Brothers. They have a kind of factory seconds which I think is c. £30 or £32 per dozen. Issue is they are generally balls that have been personalised and probably returned, or stamped incorrectly. Not something that would bother me if the performance is genuinely better.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

That is very interesting.

I am still a bit confused as to how the average golfer would test what ball is suited to them, short of having buttery hands that can feel the a few grains of sand on the ball, through a 9 iron.

Take away from that is probably to pick up some Pro V 1s from Watt Brothers. They have a kind of factory seconds which I think is c. £30 or £32 per dozen. Issue is they are generally balls that have been personalised and probably returned, or stamped incorrectly. Not something that would bother me if the performance is genuinely better.

Look at the results to see what you want and your swing speeds with different clubs etc then pick 2 or 3 and do your own testing, they’ve only used 2 swing speeds, so if you’re outside of them or smack in the middle it will come down to personal preference rather than choosing a ball because “A.N. Other” uses it or XYZ have them on sale at a particular price.

Really comes down to how much we, as individuals, care about the ball and its effect on our game.

 

[r0wly86]

That is very interesting.

I am still a bit confused as to how the average golfer would test what ball is suited to them, short of having buttery hands that can feel the a few grains of sand on the ball, through a 9 iron.

Take away from that is probably to pick up some Pro V 1s from Watt Brothers. They have a kind of factory seconds which I think is c. £30 or £32 per dozen. Issue is they are generally balls that have been personalised and probably returned, or stamped incorrectly. Not something that would bother me if the performance is genuinely better.

Some club fitters will do a ball fitting service for people now.

The interesting thing is that the manufactures have been putting out "soft" balls for a while now as amateurs seemed to have gravitated towards feel, believing that the soft feel wil lproduce better results especially around the green. However what this test shows is that the firmer high compression balls are longer off the tee ( which we knew) but also better spin control around the green. So if looking for a performance ball then don't go soft.

There is a hell of a lot of data so you need to know your swing speed and what you want from the ball. Snell MTB-X is the longest, Volvick S4 spins the most, then there's durability, dispersion etc

 

[patricks148]

wonder why they didn't test some of the real low comp balls like the Callaway SS or Wilson DX2

looks like the lowest was 70 something.

TBH I've found the soft ball increased my distance on all shots, from driver right down to wedge, as see the lack of spin as a positive off the tee, some of the longest drives i've hit this year have been with a very soft ball and the shortest with a spinny ball as i've lost distance due to the spin.

 

[Grant85]

Look at the results to see what you want and your swing speeds with different clubs etc then pick 2 or 3 and do your own testing, they’ve only used 2 swing speeds, so if you’re outside of them or smack in the middle it will come down to personal preference rather than choosing a ball because “A.N. Other” uses it or XYZ have them on sale at a particular price.

Really comes down to how much we, as individuals, care about the ball and its effect on our game.

Yes - there is still a lot to process, even assuming you knew what your swing speed was. Last time I was on trackman, my driver was around 95 to 100 mph... but this was 4 years ago.

I know you can go and get on trackman somewhere, but realistically without some tech like this it would be impossible for the average golfer to do any kind of meaningful testing. I'm certainly not consistent enough to stand with 2 or 3 different balls and hit wedges or 7 irons and determine by feel and sight what the best performer is.

A bit of research and narrow things down and maybe tell you what to avoid, but it is still going to come down to a bit of branding, price and what you like the look of.

 

[Grant85]

Some club fitters will do a ball fitting service for people now.

The interesting thing is that the manufactures have been putting out "soft" balls for a while now as amateurs seemed to have gravitated towards feel, believing that the soft feel wil lproduce better results especially around the green. However what this test shows is that the firmer high compression balls are longer off the tee ( which we knew) but also better spin control around the green. So if looking for a performance ball then don't go soft.

There is a hell of a lot of data so you need to know your swing speed and what you want from the ball. Snell MTB-X is the longest, Volvick S4 spins the most, then there's durability, dispersion etc

Yes - the soft feel info was probably the big take away from this for me. I've been using Srixon Soft Feel balls for a few years, feeling that they were a decent performer and a reasonable price point. But it seems that this probably isn't helping my game. Whether it costs me a shot, half a shot, a couple of shots a round... very hard to assess and I'd guess the margins are probably as fine as that.

 

[Imurg]

wonder why they didn't test some of the real low comp balls like the Callaway SS or Wilson DX2

looks like the lowest was 70 something.

TBH I've found the soft ball increased my distance on all shots, from driver right down to wedge, as see the lack of spin as a positive off the tee, some of the longest drives i've hit this year have been with a very soft ball and the shortest with a spinny ball as i've lost distance due to the spin.

The test was aimed at Urethane covered balls although they did include the Tour Soft and the ERC Soft as, apparently, they are being pitched against the Tour balls...?

 

[inc0gnito]

As someone who plays whatever balls he finds in the rough, does the article give any indication that the difference between balls is really that significant that one should only play with one type of ball?

(ie if playing with multiple ball compositions across rounds, one might see different carry distances or shapes that may then affect how said player adjusts his swing between shot or between rounds)

 

[Deleted member 16999]

As someone who plays whatever balls he finds in the rough, does the article give any indication that the difference between balls is really that significant that one should only play with one type of ball?

(ie if playing with multiple ball compositions across rounds, one might see different carry distances or shapes that may then affect how said player adjusts his swing between shot or between rounds)

Certainly says Lakeballs should be avoided and there were some big differences between the top and bottom ball in terms of driving distance.

 

[Crazyface]

VERY interesting reading. Cheers for that. I like Nike PD soft, now gone, but apparently made by Bridgestone who come out well in the tests. Maybe I'll look out for PD long which is a harder ball. LOL