What golf ball goes the furthest.... really

[pjchangmd]

So I have a basic question.  If there is a machine that is calibrated to hit at different speeds.  It should be easy to say which ball flies the furthers for someone with a swing speed of 80, 90, and 100.  ( This is not to say anything about feel... just distance ).  If this is true, why can't anyone tell me which ball flies the furthest for my swing speed of 90.

[GillPier]

Because there are numerous other coefficients that affect distance, not the least of which is launch angle, wind resistance, humidity, etc.

[ghoul31]

This is from a golf magazine test in 2008, with a robot at 90mph swing speed.

Golf Balls by Distance : balls

.	Ball	Distance	Spin	Hardness (Shore D Durometer)
.	TP Black	259.1	12,062	56.6
.	Noodle+	259	7,789	NA
.	TP Red	258.6	11,872	NA
.	Titleist NXT Extreme	257.5	6,824	64.8
.	Noodle+ Lady	257.1	7,453	NA
.	Precept Laddie X	256	6,242	67
.	Precept Distance iQ180	255.9	7,790	NA
.	Nike PD Soft	255.9	8,888	NA
.	Taylor Made Burner TP	255.4	10,894	NA
.	Taylor Made Burner	255.4	9,242	NA
.	Bridgestone Tour B330-S	255.2	11,866	57.2
.	Precept Lady iQ180	255.2	8,185	NA
.	Topflight Freak	254.5	5,310	68.8
.	Nike Juice 312	254.5	7,192	NA
.	Titleist NXT Tour	254.2	10,612	57.2
.	Pinnacle Gold FX Long	254.1	5,629	65.4
.	Bridgestone Tour B330	253.9	12,137	NA
.	Callaway HX Hot	253.9	6,963	67
.	Callaway Tour i	253.7	10,473	NA
.	Callaway Tour ix	253.4	9,990	NA
.	Callaway Big Bertha	252.8	7,951	64.8
.	Wilson Zip	252.7	10,518	NA
.	Wilson Tx4	252.6	12,454	NA
.	Bridgestone E5+	252	12,140	NA
.	Callaway Warbird	251.9	6,111	66.4
.	Wilson Staff Fifty	251.8	9,546	NA
.	Bridgestone E6+	251.7	7,651	NA
.	Srixon Trispeed	251.3	7,814	NA
.	Pinnacle Gold FX Soft	251	5,154	65.6
.	Topflight Gamer	250.6	10,087	56.4
.	Titelist ProV1x	250.4	12,299	55.8
.	Nike Karma	250	9,256	NA
.	Srixon AD 333	249.9	8,407	55.4
.	Titleist DT Solo (2007)	249.6	7,758	NA
.	Callaway HX Hot Bite	249.3	11,331	54.4
.	Nike Ignite	249.1	7,071	NA
.	Titelist ProV1	249	11,914	57.2
.	Nike One Black	249	12,431	56.8
.	Topflight XL Distance	248.6	7,667	65.6
.	Volvik Crystal	248.5	5,986	64.6
.	Topflight D2 Feel	248.4	8,808	NA
.	Srixon Z-URS	247.5	12,137	NA
.	Srixon Z-URC	247.2	12,250	NA
.	Nike One Platinum	239.1	13,451	46.8

[pjchangmd]

THIS is what I have been looking for .  THX!

[saevel25]

That chart is crazy, those spin numbers are off the scale BAD!!!! That alone puts into question the results right there.

I went to flight scope, plugged in a very good struck ball from a 90 mph swing speed, the 12000 RPM top number would only go 173 yards.

Even with optimal flight numbers your looking at 210-215 MAX, not 259.

How ever they decided to do this test, it was flawed, or the machine used to measure the distance and spin was horribly off.

To go 259 yards, you would need a swing speed of near 105 mph.

[Valleygolfer]

Not a great comparison IMHO. Many brands were left off and 90 mph will not compress a higher compression ball as effectively.

[MEfree]

This is from a golf magazine test in 2008,

Even if the test was accurate at the time, I imagine that a number of those balls have changed in the last 5 years.

[pjchangmd]

I think there must be a conspiracy by the leading golf ball companies to NOT publish this kind of information.  Why isn't there more information since 2008.  The test should be easy.  They have a robot that hits 80, 90, and 100mph.  All things being equal, they normalize for temperature, humidity, grass, trajectory, etc.  They should be able to knock this test out in a day!!  I am not talking about how the ball spins or feels... simply how far does the ball go?

[RPMPIRE]

I think there must be a conspiracy by the leading golf ball companies to NOT publish this kind of information.  Why isn't there more information since 2008.  The test should be easy.  They have a robot that hits 80, 90, and 100mph.  All things being equal, they normalize for temperature, humidity, grass, trajectory, etc.  They should be able to knock this test out in a day!!  I am not talking about how the ball spins or feels... simply how far does the ball go?

Because it doesn't take into account a lot of variables by THE GOLFER who ultimately uses the ball. Sure a robot can consistently hit the ball at the same, but name any golfer that can do that.

[GaijinGolfer]

Ever if they posted numbers, would you expect them to be fair and accurate?  Its just like cars and, "estimated" fuel economy.

[pjchangmd]

Understood.  But it is the baseline number.  This should be the distance that perfect golfer would hit every time if he hits it on the screws.  Anything less than that, obviously it wouldn't go as far.  But now he knows which ball would go the furthest if he swung perfectly.   Obviously, there are other parts of the game; he still needs to chip and putt.  But that was not the question.  The question is simply.  Which ball flies the furthest under perfect controlled conditions.

[Always an 80]

Bandit. Nuff said. lol

[misty_mountainhop]

Definitely something odd with those numbers. Or something missing in the explanation. The spin #s are more reminiscent of being hit by a PW - is that what they were?

[ghoul31]

1.) The driver distances were determined by using a robot swinging a Taylormade R7 Super Quad 10.5* driver with 45” regular flex Accra T50 M4 graphite shaft & 59* lie angle. Launch conditions were set at – 90 mph swing, 137 mph ball speed, 13.75* launch angle and 2,900 RPMs.
DISTANCES ARE CARRY + ROLL (i.e. total distance)

2.) The spin rate of the balls were tested by a robot swinging a Titleist Vokey Spin Milled (Oil Can) 56* sand wedge, 35 ¼” True Temper Dynamic Gold wedge flex steel shaft with a 64* lie angle. Launch conditions were 76mph swing speed, 80 mph ball speed and 38.5* launch angle.

3.) Ball cover hardness was measured with a Shore D Durometer after averaging 5 measurements on each ball. “The Shore D hardness scale is commonly used to gauge the hardness of plastics and rubbers. (A lower Shore D number equates to softer.)” Measurements ranged from the industry’s softest cover 46.8 (Nike One Platinum) to hardest 68.8 (Top-Flite Freak).

Shore D listings were divided into two groups. The "softest" group were balls with measurements between 46.8 and 57.2. The "hardest" group were balls with measurements between 64.6 and 68.8. Thus I would assume (although I have no proof) that balls not listed in either group were Shore D rated between 57.2 and 64.6. Although I have no proof of that, balls that were not listed in either group have been listed as "NA" because their ratings were not available.

[acerimusdux]

Keep in mind, the USGA has pretty much put a "speed limit" (and distance limit) on golf balls.  And they actually test at simulated swing speeds of 100 mph (for the initial velocity test) and 120 mph (for the maximum distance test).  With todays technology, manufacturers could easily blow past those limits, especially with higher compression balls.  But then they would be making non-conforming balls.

So the reason you don't see much published data comparing distances, is that they are pretty much all the same for 90-120 mph swing speeds, especially for higher compression balls.  Some of the lower compression balls, designed for slower swing speeds, may fall just a bit shorter, but even there some of the more recent designs are performing near the limits.

Also, these tests are all at a particular launch angle and trajectory.  If the results are close, most within about 5 yards, they may be different with your swing.  If you experience more than a 10 yard difference between two balls though, I think that would likely be due to either a compression mismatch, an older ball design, or a really low end ball.

So I think most players today are choosing balls based more on spin and feel, since the short game differences will usually mean more than maybe 5 yards difference off the tee.

[pjchangmd]

Keep in mind, the USGA has pretty much put a "speed limit" (and distance limit) on golf balls.  And they actually test at simulated swing speeds of 100 mph (for the initial velocity test) and 120 mph (for the maximum distance test).  With todays technology, manufacturers could easily blow past those limits, especially with higher compression balls.  But then they would be making non-conforming balls.

So the reason you don't see much published data comparing distances, is that they are pretty much all the same for 90-120 mph swing speeds, especially for higher compression balls.  Some of the lower compression balls, designed for slower swing speeds, may fall just a bit shorter, but even there some of the more recent designs are performing near the limits.

Also, these tests are all at a particular launch angle and trajectory.  If the results are close, most within about 5 yards, they may be different with your swing.  If you experience more than a 10 yard difference between two balls though, I think that would likely be due to either a compression mismatch, an older ball design, or a really low end ball.

So I think most players today are choosing balls based more on spin and feel, since the short game differences will usually mean more than maybe 5 yards difference off the tee.

That is probably the BEST and most reasonable answer I have ever gotten to this question!  Again, in a competative business, you would think that companies would be publishing exactly why their golf balls are better than their competition; instead, you find superlatives and adjectives but no numbers.  So your answer makes perfect sense.  They are all basically the same in terms of distance for most people... most of us should therefore care more about feel, spin, looks. and don't forget durability

[acerimusdux]

That is probably the BEST and most reasonable answer I have ever gotten to this question!  Again, in a competative business, you would think that companies would be publishing exactly why their golf balls are better than their competition; instead, you find superlatives and adjectives but no numbers.  So your answer makes perfect sense.  They are all basically the same in terms of distance for most people... most of us should therefore care more about feel, spin, looks. and don't forget durability

Not to mention COST.

This thread is 8 months old, but I thought it was interesting, this guy went for one of these ball fittings, compared 5 different balls off his driver, and as far as I can tell the results are exactly the same for all 5.  The only differences in distance can be attributed to his different swing speeds.  The 89 mph swings were 208-209 yard carry, 230-231 yards total, the 90 mph swings both exactly 215 carry, 238 yards total, and one 91 mph swing at 216 carry, 238 total.  Can't be more than a few yards yardage difference actually attributable to any of those balls.   Differences are mostly going to be from different swings, even with a very consistent swing.

Thing is, I often see it recommended that beginning to intermediate players don't need, or may not even benefit from, the top end tour balls, but then I see the $20 a dozen intermediate balls usually recommended.  But I'm wondering if there's really much benefit even there over some of the $5-$10 a dozen cheapies.  It seems to me no one even tests the cheapest balls.  But maybe that's because they aren't making much money selling them, either.

Also, for putting, I guess it comes down to individual preference, and I know some prefer the feel of the softer more expensive balls putting, but I don't see any objective reason to think they are better.  The softer ball creates more spin off the wedge due to more friction, and holds the green better due to more friction, but for putting, wouldn't less friction actually mean a truer roll?  In my experiece so far, I actually prefer the way some of the harder, cheaper balls put.

I don't want to dismiss "ball fitting" altogether, but to some degree I think it is being overhyped and sometimes used by manufacturers to direct consumers to their more expensive balls.  In general, the ball has little impact on your score.  Even for really good golfers, who demand fine spin control, that additional capability from the ball probably only gains them 2-3 strokes a round.  For myself, I should probably worry about getting to where I can get it within several feet most of the time from anywhere within 75 yards, before I worry about the stopping capabilities of the ball on those chip shots.

I suppose though that when you are at the stage where you aren't losing balls anymore, and you're accurate enough to get the ball to land close, at that point it's worth spending a little more for balls that you can control better around the green.  But even then, choosing between the various similar urethane covered balls probably comes down to individual preference.  And at that stage, a "ball fitting" probably isn't going to tell you much that you don't already know.

Probably all that's really needed for a good "ball fitting" is to ask golfers, a) their handicap, b)how far they hit a driver, and c) how many balls they lose a round.  That's enough to narrow it down to a general category, at which point, it's really going to be subjective, and come down to what feels best to you for putting, chipping, and pitches, for the cost.  I'm not sure "feel" on drives really even matters that much.

[GaijinGolfer]

I don't want to dismiss "ball fitting" altogether, but to some degree I think it is being overhyped and sometimes used by manufacturers to direct consumers to their more expensive balls.  In general, the ball has little impact on your score.  Even for really good golfers, who demand fine spin control, that additional capability from the ball probably only gains them 2-3 strokes a round.  For myself, I should probably worry about getting to where I can get it within several feet most of the time from anywhere within 75 yards, before I worry about the stopping capabilities of the ball on those chip shots.

Not in the case of Bridgestone.  Ive been to a few ball fittings and they usually suggest the E6, which is far from their most expensive ball.  Even in my case, they usually suggest the E6, the E5 is the secondary recommendation and 3rd is the B330-RX.  I still game the B330-RX because I was the spin to get the ball to stop on the green on pitches and chips.

One thing to consider about golf balls is that the more expensive, 3-piece balls are designed to have low spin off the driver and high spin with the wedges, so are those cheaper balls really any more accurate off the tee?  Golf Digest recently did a ball test and claimed that the difference from the cheaper balls to the tour balls was about 4 yards.  I'll gladly give up those 4 yards if it means I can get the ball to stop on the green even when Im hitting 1/2 pitch shots.  IMO, it all comes down to how much you are willing to spend.  Better performance is going to cost more.