Fresh off the publication of the 2019 Golf Ball test, members of the MyGolfSpy Team take to Facebook & YouTube live to discuss the results.
For You
For You
MyGolfSpy
MyGolfSpy
Our mission is #ConsumerFirst. We are here to help educate and empower golfers. We want you to get the most out of your money, time and performance. That means providing you with equipment reviews you can trust, as well as honest reporting on the latest issues affecting the game today. #PowerToThePlayer
MyGolfSpy
MyGolfSpy
What’s the Right Way to Lay Up?
Oct 30, 2024 |
4 Comments
Par-3s – Scorecard Killers
Sep 25, 2024 |
6 Comments
Three Holes That Will Decide Who Wins Gold at the Olympic Games
Aug 1, 2024 |
0 Comments
How Do Amateurs Play the Postage Stamp at Royal Troon?
Jul 18, 2024 |
0 Comments
MyGolfSpy
MyGolfSpy
| Driver Ping G30 | Hybrids PXG 0317 |
| 3/4 IRON PXG 0311XF | 5-GW Srixon Z 565 |
| SW PXG 0317 | LW PXG 0311 |
| Putter EVNROLL |
MyGolfSpy
MyGolfSpy
comments
Lou
5 years ago
I am a 73 year old 12 hcp…at age 50 and younger I was a +2…and played the Pro V1x….I won some city events club championships and even 4 mini tour events as a Sr. Pro….since illness and age have taken my driver speed from 106 to about 82 I read your review with great focus and interest….I NEVER LIKED THE FEEL OF THESE SOFTER BALLS (I was told they were longerat at my old man speed) EVEN THOUGH I HAVE VERY SLOW DRIVER SPEED NOW…..AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE QUITE THE SAME INSIDE 30 YDS OR ON FULL WEDGE SHOTS SO….I purchased some Pro V1 balls and did a very controlled test….I can’t mention the competitive ball (to long to explain) but at my 82 mph the TITLEIST mirrored your test results with the robot…I went out on a day (no wind) on a day our range was closed with a new dozen of each ball…THE PRO V1x was an average of 5 TO 8 YDS LONGER….with short pitches and full wedge shots the spin difference is very notable for a guy with a good short game….I hope other players appreciate your extensive testing…
Peter Harrison
5 years ago
Thank you for sharing that fantastic golf ball test. Below are a couple suggestions for improving the test and making the results even more interesting.
1) Use a golf ball spinner to identify the balance equator. Hit half of all balls with the equator lined up with the target and the other half with the equator lined up perpendicular to the target. Note the equator setup for each ball and report the results for those two ball groups (all brands combined). This would provide a definitive answer to whether such detailed “ball management” has any value. I suspect the results would be significant and surprising.
2) Test each ball with the salt water test. The critical measure is how long it takes a ball to return to its balance point. My experience with this test is that EVERY ball is unbalanced so that it will always return to the same position in salt water. The question is what degree of “unbalancedness” makes a discernible difference in performance. This I don’t know. But again, my experience is that balls can take between 8 and 15 seconds to return to their balance point. I eliminate any ball that takes 10 seconds or less…presumably those are the most unbalanced balls and most likely to go haywire. By combining this test result with your usual testing, you should get a handle on two interesting questions…1) what brands tend to have more “out of balance” balls and 2) Does this method of measuring “out of balance” account for the variations in ball consistency you observe. I suspect it would.
Thanks for listening and looking forward to more great tests like this one.
Shane Spruiell
5 years ago
Thank you mygolfspy for all of your work to bring this information to the public eye! I think this type of research is ground-breaking – It’s already started to shake up the golfing world.
One data point which I would be very interested to hear you speak in more detail about is shot area. I think this is something a lot of people can overlook, and it’s arguably more important than any other statistic. What good is a ball that generates high spin or travels further if it is inconsistent (i.e. larger shot area)? I’d much rather lose a few yards or have less spin if I know my ball of choice will always perform the same from ball to ball.
Shane Spruiell
5 years ago
It would also be very beneficial to hear more about the variability within the machine that is hitting the golf ball. Could that have an impact on some of the inconsistencies in the shot area, or can you say with confidence that the variability is due to the way the ball is manufactured? Also knowing how many balls were hit and the conditions would be very helpful. For example, what if the snell mtb-x was hit outside on a day that the wind was at your back (producing the largest carry distance for the high speed driver test)? Or, what if the callaway ERC soft was hit on a day with virtually no wind (producing the smallest shot area on the high swing speed driver test). Also, could the surface that the ball is landing on impact the shot area? What if a group of ball landed in close proximity, but hit on different slopes, creating a larger shot area? As far as how many balls were hit during the test – a smaller sample size would obviously magnify these inconsistencies as well
Tony Covey
5 years ago
Each segment of the test was completed on the same day in the same conditions, with absolutely minimal variation.
Shot area was calculated using the landing position for both the carry and offline measurments. Basically it’s based on where the ball landed, not where it rolled, so ground condition, slope, etc. was not a factor.
We used a golf labratories swing robot (while some club manufacturers build their own, it’s reasonable to describe it as industry standard. Again, very little variability in the delivery of the club.
chisag
6 years ago
As the viral video said “Aint nobody got time for that!” Please include a transcript so we can read it instead of being locked into a podcast I don’t hav the time or inclination to listen to. Thanks!
James
6 years ago
So you don’t have time to throw on some head phones and listen while do other things but you would rather have a transcript that you have to focus on to read??
JJ
6 years ago
One of the most helpful things you could ever do for the “average” golfer is find out which ball when hit with an open or closed face spins the least offline.
I would wager most 15+ handicappers lose strokes on side to side misses than anything else (in regards to ball choice).
Clearly one component is just the Std Dev. in any given ball but the actual rotation when struck incorrectly would be the most powerful thing you could ever test in a ball, for the average golfer like me. It would also be incredibly interesting to see if the soft compression balls help in those scenarios.
Thanks for all the great work!
Cheers,
JJ
Captain Hook
5 years ago
I agree! Missing the center of percussion right or left would be interesting too. Everything published shows pros as much Moore consistent in ball striking even compared to scratch players. The robot is likely even more consistent than a pro.
Walter
6 years ago
Great test guys. One piece of info I couldn’t find was how many times each ball was tested per club so you could get your averages. Can you provide that info.
I’m also curious why 2 of you(MGS) choose the Tour BX, what your reasons for that choice. Also was one the other guys choose the ZStar XV over the ZStar which was rated higher, why.
Bart
6 years ago
I have been asking for this information since day one. It is key to understanding the validity of the results and should be provided if they want the test results to be taken seriously. (FYI: I use golf balls they rank Excellent and Very Good so I am not “upset” by their results.)
I am upset that they are way overhyping this as the definitive golf ball test when they clearly didn’t test the accuracy of the robot beforehand or test more than a couple of golf balls with each club and swing speed.
Madd Shirley
6 years ago
I work in a golf shop and use your information all time.
The ball test will be very helpful at work.
I tell all our customers about your web site all the time.
fairways & greens
Justin
6 years ago
This is by far the best test that I have ever seen on a golf ball. Though I would have liked to have seen the Taylormade project a, I have found a ball that I like more anyway in the Srixon Z star. The results were instant. The ball goes further and spins the way I want around the greens. After reading this my decision for a golf ball is now more clear than ever. The Srixon is available on amazon right now for $30 a dozen. Thank you for doing this test. I truly believe that it has helped my game.
vast123
6 years ago
Donation sent…thank you mygolfspy
Conor
6 years ago
Nice to see you guys discuss the results in this format. I learned a lot. I’ve been playing with a firmer ball (bridgestone) and according to arccos I’m driving much farther now. I guess the Chrome Softs just weren’t for me.
tim
6 years ago
I was bitchin about the lack of a golfball test on a comment thread a couple of months ago. You said you’d deliver and you did and it was awesome.
Interesting to note how well the pro v’s performed. While every other company was coming out with soft this and that, they were saying soft=slow. They did ultimately cave to the consumer and gave them the ‘tour soft’, but it was a couple of years after the chrome soft bonanza.
It seems Titleist knows what is best for the consumer, but keeps quiet about it, just delivers. I wonder what else they know. Up until the TS2/3, their drivers weren’t the longest, but my 917 seems to find fairway more often than other drivers. Its got a look and a feel that Im not sure I can give up for a couple of extra yards. I think there is a little more to all of it than low back CG and composite crowns.
Waazzupppp
6 years ago
It seems silly, but I had a completely different takeaway from all of the data than most of the folks that I’ve talked to about it. Yes, the distance thing is great, but for those of us that aren’t terribly worried about distance, the eye popping stat was the “shot area” one…
What I mean is that I’m just fine averaging 275 off the tee instead of 290 – if I’m finding fairways all day long. I’m good with hitting a 7 iron 168 instead of 185 if I’m hitting the green with it. I’m dandy with my lob wedge carrying 75 instead of 82 if I’m knocking down flags all day… But if this data is on point, there are certain balls that are much more prone to “distance over direction” and there are others that are more of the “precision over distance”.
This is one of the most intriguing studies of golf equipment that I have seen over the past 30 years. I do wonder, though… They keep saying there isn’t much of a reason to play a “value” ball with the cost of the big boys coming down so far, but would the data show that for the average weekend warrior that the benefits of playing a premium ball would be worth the $2.00 premium upgrade price or is it splitting hairs again?
I’d love to see that Value Ball test – especially the “shot area” stat. One might think that the more simple the construction is, the more static the performance would be. Of course, it could also be that the cheaper the ball, the less tight the tolerances are. What do you think guys, you going to appease the masses and get a $10-20 a dozen test going?
Shane Spruiell
5 years ago
I totally agree that the shot area is perhaps the most crucial statistic in this test. I would love to see a budget golf ball test as well!
Bill
6 years ago
The Kirland ball will be ok for my money…..
Wilson Player
6 years ago
The Kirkland is a great ball for my game.
I have noticed it to be long off the tee, straight and rolls a mile.
But- just like the test shows it seems short off the irons.
The winner in this test look like the Q-start tour. high on both the driver and 7 iron distance test. least off line of any ball.
Ken Russell
6 years ago
Every golfer I’ve spoken with in the last two days are in awe with your ball test and your large take away IS get ball fitted period . THANK YOU !!!
Bob
6 years ago
I’m not in awe…
cksurfdude
6 years ago
Guys – thanks for all the hard work on this! Informative and laying out all the data was, of course, key and a boon to spreadsheet nerds everywhere… :)
And… **THANKS!!!** for, umm, “legitimizing” that now it’s ok to _BLAME THE BALL_ for going on the wrong direction…. (ha ha lol wink-wink) ;-)
adam
4 months ago
Hi,
I really would like this test to be published again. You have the 2023 test, the 2021 test, but I can’t find the 2019 test.
The great thing about each 2 year test still available, is that it lets us see “are balls getting better over time”, it also lets us see “are ball models staying similar relative to each other (some years prov1x spun more than the prov1 off the driver)”. Lots of use have many unopened balls in our closet from years back, and we would like to be able to reference your older tests to predict how the ball will behave relative to the new balls.
This test you do ever 2 years is the reason I’m a MyGolfSpy reader, please don’t take the results of these older tests away from us even if there is brand/sponsorship pressure asking you to take old results down.