The Tuning Fork: Why PING Created The Ballnamic Fitting Tool

When PING launched Ballnamic, it wasn’t long before my phone started buzzing. Some inside the golf ball world were puzzled and perhaps slightly alarmed.

“What is PING doing?”

That’s a helluva question.

Why would a company without a ball in its product lineup invest in creating a comprehensive ball fitting system? Was this a prelude to PING entering the golf ball market or something else entirely?

It’s safe to say that in the early days of Ballnamic, PING made a decent amount of money from the ball manufacturers. Everyone wanted to see what the algorithm would recommend and I will never not laugh thinking about the rep from a leading ball company who dejectedly told me Ballnamic had recommended a Cut Golf ball.

Oof.

The calls kept coming, with some wondering about things like Ballnamic’s wind scores and why some balls weren’t showing up in the recommendations – at least not as often as some thought they should be. The algorithm, it seemed, played no favorites although, anecdotally, Chrome Soft X seemed to pop up a lot.

To understand the reasoning behind Ballnamic, you need to rewind to a fundamental philosophy that has guided the company for decades.

“The golf ball is the tuning fork for performance.”

Those words from PING founder Karsten Solheim have echoed through the company’s approach for generations, serving as the genesis for Ballnamic. PING’s seemingly counterintuitive move into ball fitting without selling balls reveals something deeper about the company’s engineering mindset: the equipment ecosystem doesn’t begin and end with the clubs.

The golf ball matters.

Why PING created Ballnamic

“We gotta design our clubs to the golf ball always,” explains Marty Jertson, PING’s VP of Fitting and Performance. “If golf balls got higher-spinning or higher-flying or whatever, we had to design our club heads to optimize for that.”

It’s a reality that PING has been navigating for decades. For most club companies, I’d wager the golf ball isn’t top of mind but PING has long viewed the ball as an important variable in the golf club performance equation.

The company has been testing balls extensively for at least 15 years but the road to Ballnamic can be traced to an observation roughly a decade ago. PING’s engineers began noticing something unexpected in ball flight patterns that would fundamentally change their approach to equipment design.

Democratizing data

The catalyst for Ballnamic came when PING discovered what Jertson calls “decoupling” between a ball’s initial spin rates and its actual flight characteristics.

“A low-spin ball, a low initial-spin ball can fly high, and a high-spin ball can fly low,” Jertson explains, highlighting what he considers one of their biggest insights.

What makes this revelation particularly significant is how small the measurable differences can be at launch. “In a driver, I would say probably 90 percent of golf balls out there that we test are within plus or minus 200 rpm of initial spin. But how they fly is dramatically different.”

This finding fundamentally challenged how golf balls should be fitted and tested. If you’re fitting indoors with a launch monitor that captures only initial conditions, you’re missing half the story. Two balls could show nearly identical numbers at impact but perform completely differently downrange.

The second catalyst was modeling what Tour players had already figured out: using the ball as the final tuning mechanism in their equipment setup.

“With the driver, they’d like to see a little more loft. That’s what they prefer. It helped their mechanics,” Jertson notes. “They start playing too little loft, they start hanging back, tipping back. It’s not good for them.”

The solution? “They would just switch balls” to optimize the performance without changing what they see at address.

PING saw an opportunity to democratize this approach. “We wanted to take our data, our expertise in aerodynamics, our expertise with our robot testing, and then marry it up and give the level of service that Tour players were already getting to the everyday golfer.”

What golfers are learning through Ballnamic

When golfers go through the Ballnamic fitting process, many experience genuine revelations about their equipment. The system—designed to be educational as much as prescriptive—opens their eyes to possibilities they hadn’t considered.

“A big part of when we design software on our end is like, we want the customer to be educated on the process when they go through it,” Jertson explains. That education includes eye-openers like “I didn’t know a golf ball could reduce flyers. I didn’t know I could use a golf ball to have a ball go higher on the driver but lower on the irons.”

This educational component may be why Ballnamic has gained traction. The system doesn’t just recommend a ball; it reveals how different balls respond to different swing types and explains why those differences matter.

When it comes to what most golfers want from their fitting, two clear priorities emerge: distance off the tee and spin around the greens. “Generally speaking, people want to hit it far off the tee,” Jertson notes. “And then we see a lot of golfers that want high spin around the greens.”

This focus on distance and greenside spin might explain why some ball models kept appearing in the early Ballnamic recommendations. It explains why Chrome Soft X seemed to be a frequent recommendation. It turns out the ball was simply delivering what most golfers were asking for: good distance combined with high spin around the greens.

That said, Jertson is quick to point out that Ballnamic doesn’t dictate priorities, either. It allows golfers to communicate what matters to them. “We didn’t want to be the ones determining what’s important to the customer. The customer tells Ballnamic what’s important to them.”

Making the cut: the criteria for Ballnamic testing

If you’ve ever wondered why your favorite two-piece distance ball doesn’t show up in Ballnamic’s recommendations, there’s a reason for that. PING has established clear criteria for balls that make it into their testing protocol.

“Our criteria is urethane-covered balls, three- or more piece construction, over $20,” Jertson explains.

This might seem exclusionary but there’s a practical reason. Testing every golf ball on the market would be a logistical nightmare. The rigorous nature of PING’s testing protocol makes comprehensive testing of the entire market impractical.

“The testing burden is just too high,” Jertson notes. “It’s just too many SKUs. And our testing is so rigorous that that would explode our sample size too much to be reasonable.”

Instead, PING focuses its efforts on balls that serious golfers are most likely to play. There’s some flexibility in the criteria (I see you, Kirkland) but, at its core, Ballnamic is designed for golfers seeking high-level performance.

That doesn’t mean PING ignores the two-piece ionomer market entirely. They routinely test balls outside their formal criteria to monitor performance trends.

“We will always keep our eye on those balls and we do test them occasionally,” Jertson says. “If we saw any of those balls have the combination—distance, spin on the irons, greenside spin—that made them worthy of getting officially into our testing process, we will a hundred percent change our criteria.”

So far, no ionomer ball has demonstrated performance characteristics that warrant inclusion alongside the premium urethane offerings. But the door remains open.

Similarly, PING currently tests only the standard white version of each ball model, though they’re aware that colored variants sometimes perform differently.

“We’ve seen at times, depending on the ball and the engineering of it, it can impact the performance,” Jertson acknowledges. Testing colored balls is another potential expansion of the Ballnamic database that could come in the future.

PING’s key insights from Ballnamic data

With more than 20,000 consumer fittings (not counting those conducted by PING’s own fitters and licensees), Ballnamic has given PING unprecedented insight into ball performance and market trends.

For starters, PING has developed a much clearer picture of the performance extremes in the market. Rather than just focusing on the “average” ball, PING has data on the full range of ball flights—from the lowest flying to the highest, from the balls that spin only slightly more than a Tim Wakefield knuckleball to those that hop-and-stop with ferocious Tour-level bite.

“We want to understand the end ranges and design our products to understand the end ranges of that performance,” Jertson explains. This understanding directly feeds into PING’s club design, helping the company create products that can accommodate the full spectrum of ball performance.

Catering to the extremes as well as to the middle is why PING’s iron sets are available in standard, retro and power specs.

Another revelation has been the sometimes dramatic year-to-year changes in ball performance from the same models and manufacturers. What Jertson describes might shock golfers who think the only thing that ever changes is the sidestamp. “That’s one of the surprising findings in our time doing this – how much one brand and golf ball can change from one year to the next.”

These aren’t minor tweaks, either. Balls can transform from “super-high greenside spin to medium or medium low” in a single generation or flip from “low greenside spin to some of the highest greenside spin.” The changes aren’t necessarily good or bad—they’re just different and they happen more frequently than most golfers realize.

There have been cases where year-over-year changes were so dramatic that PING has retested the balls to confirm the results.

“Sometimes a ball performs very similarly to the year before,” Jertson explains, “but other times you’ll see one model go from high flight down to low or medium.”

For PING, these insights provide a constant flow of data that informs club design. The shifting landscape of ball performance means PING must continually monitor and adapt to ensure their clubs work optimally with whatever balls golfers choose to play.

A multi-ball revolution?

If there’s one genuinely revolutionary idea that emerges from Jertson’s insights, it’s this: serious golfers should consider using different balls for different situations. This isn’t just a preference—it’s a performance strategy that flies in the face of conventional wisdom.

“For every single tournament round I play, I play a minimum of two balls,” Jertson reveals. “And I think every golfer should.”

(Keep in mind that the USGA’s one-ball rule is a local rule and typically isn’t in effect.)

This advice carries weight coming from Jertson who isn’t just an engineer with an elevated title. He’s made five PGA Championship appearances and competed in the 2020 U.S. Open.

His ball strategy breaks down into distinct recommendations for different player types.

Average Golfers: Use a minimum of two models based on the hole type. “If you’re a 15 handicapper, if you’re a 10 handicapper and above, I would recommend for them to play a different ball on par-4s and -5s that’s more optimized for distance. Then switch to a different ball on par-3s that’s designed to fly higher and spin more for better stopping power.”

Better Players: Have specific balls for wind conditions. “At a minimum, a better player should be playing a downwind ball and an ‘into-the-wind’ ball.” This approach allows players to optimize flight characteristics without changing their swing. “You could make the same driver swing and change your peak height a ton and have your into-the-wind ball go both straighter and fly lower and go further.”

Those Seeking Every Advantage: Jertson has gone as far as using five different balls in a single competition round, strategically selecting each based on wind direction, pin position and green firmness. “I won a local section tournament and I played five different balls in this tournament. It was a windy day and there were firm greens.”

The results speak for themselves: “I’ve had a couple holes where front pins, super-firm greens downwind, and without the [Bridgestone] TOUR B XS, I would not have been able to shred my wedge in there if I were using a different ball. It gave me a significant advantage over my competition.”

Most recreational players have been taught to use one ball for consistency—a mantra reinforced by major ball manufacturers for decades. Jertson believes the conventional approach leaves performance on the table.

When should you re-do your Ballnamic fitting?

Given how frequently ball performance changes year to year, when should golfers revisit their Ballnamic results?

PING updates the Ballnamic database a minimum of twice a year but typically closer to four times annually. These updates coincide with new ball releases and provide fresh data on how the latest offerings perform.

Jertson recommends redoing your Ballnamic fitting in several scenarios.

After a club fitting: “Anytime you go get a new driver, go get new irons, whatever, is a great time to go through Ballnamic.”

When traveling to different environments: “If you are a golf techie, a golf junkie, and you’re gonna go on a guy’s trip to Bandon, go through Ballnamic and pick a ball that’s going to be good in the wind and good at sea level.” Similarly, if you’re headed to altitude, Ballnamic can recommend balls that perform optimally in thinner air.

After Ballnamic updates its database: Since ball performance can change dramatically from year to year, checking in after PING updates its database ensures you’re getting the most current recommendations.

To make these periodic fittings more accessible, PING recently changed its pricing model to reduce the barrier to ball fitting. Instead of a flat $39 fee for five uses, golfers now choose from more flexible options: one fitting for $15, three fittings for $29 or the original five-pack for $39. These codes can be used whenever needed or shared with friends and playing partners, making it easier to spread the Ballnamic gospel to your regular foursome.

The future of Ballnamic

As for what’s coming next from Ballnamic, PING has several enhancements in the pipeline.

“We’re building a kiosk mode that golfers will be able to walk up to in ball sections of stores,” Jertson reveals. This feature is in beta testing with some of PING’s licensees and should make ball fitting more accessible to the average golfer.

Perhaps more intriguingly, PING is developing enhanced wind performance analysis. “We’re also working on building more insights for wind performance to help golfers with how the ball flies in the wind, help them with how much it will impact their individual personalized game in windy conditions.”

This focus on wind performance makes sense given Jertson’s own multi-ball strategy and the significant impact wind can have on different ball designs.

The tuning fork keeps ringing

If there’s one clear takeaway from PING’s Ballnamic journey, it’s that the golf ball isn’t just another piece of equipment—it’s the foundational element around which everything else revolves. Karsten’s “tuning fork” analogy seems more apt than ever.

What began as an internal testing program to inform club design has evolved into a consumer-facing tool that’s challenging conventional wisdom about ball selection. In the process, it reveals just how much performance can be gained by optimizing this often-overlooked equipment choice.

The irony isn’t lost that one of the most sophisticated ball fitting systems comes from a company that doesn’t make balls. But in typical PING fashion, they’ve approached the problem from an engineering perspective rather than a sales one. The goal isn’t to sell you a ball. It’s to help you find the best ball (or balls) for you game—and you might even learn something along the way.

As Jertson puts it, “we just wanna match people to the right ball.”

In a golf industry where virtually every brand claims products are “right” for everyone, there’s something refreshingly honest about the Ballnamic approach.