Technasonic Check-Go Use

After water balancing my golf balls for several years, I decided to purchase a Check-Go Pro. I compared 3 dozen golf balls that had been previously water balanced and found that the equilibrium point found by the Check-Go (top of the ball in the unit) was very close to the equator found by water balancing- 90 degrees off where Technasonic states that the "heavy" side of the ball would be (along the equator found when spinning the unit). This was found to be the case in 33 of the 36 golf balls I tested.

After thinking about this, it occurred to me that the heavy side of the ball would tend to gravitate to the top or bottom of the axis while spinning in the unit rather than the equator, otherwise would the ball not wobble while spinning in the unit? I would think that in order to reach equilibrium that the heavy side of the ball would need to be found on the axis rather than the equator.

Anyone's thoughts?

I once did what you did above - it's apparent I took the game too seriously at one time. My game did not rate that consideration.

At the same time, I think golf ball quality standards are improved from 10 years ago...

I don't know anything about water balancing but I've spun quite a few balls up in my "Check-n-go"  These things are often gifts for the golfer who has everything and my wife and daughters ran out of golf stuff to buy for Father's Day, birthday, and Christmas.

I got into using it for a while after I bought some really cheap balls that were "house" brand at Golfsmith.  By cheap I mean 24 or 30 (I dont' remember) balls for about $10. My game was in terrible shape and I decided that it didn't matter what ball I used. The only part of my game that didn't suck before I bought the balls was putting.

Then I started noticing that my putts were taking unexpected breaks around the hole. Like a downhill right to left that gets 6 inches from the hole and turns back right. After seeing this more than any golfer should see in a lifetime, I dusted off the "Check-n-go"  My intention was to spin the balls and mark the equator as an alignment aid. I marked a few and went to the practice green a couple of times. I putted fairly well with the alignment aid but I found the line around the ball to be a distraction because I was always worried that I lined the ball up wrong.

I re-read the box and the instructions and realized that if a ball was out of balance as much as they said they could be, who knows how true they would roll the last half of the putt. I also noticed that when I would spin the balls, that some of the balls took a long time to settle down in the machine.

Since centrifugal force is going to make the heavy side rotate around the equator, I reasoned that if this thing really works then I should be able to spin one and mark it, then turn it upside down and place a second mark 180 degrees opposite of the first mark and a line intersecting both dots should be perpendicular to the line marking the equator. Worked every time.

I mentioned that some of the balls took longer to settle down in the machine....what I mean by that is some balls would have a violent wobble when starting up and others would spin up very smooth and reach max speed quickly.

I've looked at 4 ball types, the above mentioned cheap store brand, Titleist ProV1 (I love 'em), Noodles, and Taylormade Pentas.  The difference as far as "Check-n-go" is concerned is that the cheaper balls took longer to spin up.  To me this would indicate that cheaper balls are more likely to be out of balance or out or round.

To double back on the putting problem that got me started on this experiment, I took brand new unmarked cheap balls and brand new unmarked ProV1s to the practice green and the cheap balls behaved exactly as I'd expected with more lip outs, more odd breaks at the end of the putt, and less putts holed when compared to the Pro V1s on the same greeen, same day, same line, same conditions, same everything.

I

As an aside to the usefulness of water balancing a golf ball, Ralph Maltby has a putting demonstration video that shows the results of having the ball balanced. I have also caddied for several years and have seen what appears (no way to be able to tell with certainty that this is the case) to be the effect of having the "heavy" side of the ball favoring one side of the ball or the other rather than the equator (line upon which the ball ball rolls) on a putt. The result is that when the ball starts to die, it will veer dramatically toward the heavy side depending on how much off balance the ball is and how much the center of gravity of the ball is off the equator. I have seen putts that are just outside the hole staying straight, sometimes even seemingly breaking uphill. The quality of the read is tested by putting the same line a few more times and getting different results, human error notwithstanding.

Comparing the spinning of the golf ball to wheel spin balancing is not a true comparison as mentioned on the Check-Go marketing material. Spin balancing a wheel takes place in two dimensions (plane) while golf ball spin balancing takes place in 3 dimensions. If the center of gravity is free to move in 3 dimensions as with the Check-Go, the ball can only reach rotational equilibrium by forcing the center of gravity to the axis of the spin rather than forcing it to the equator.

I presume that when players consistently use a spun golf ball as recommended, they will get consistent results so having the heavy side of the ball to one side or the other will not make a huge difference to a recreational golfer using the markings as directed in the unit's instruction manual.

I have yet to test putt balls to compare Check-Go vs. water balancing so stay tuned...