or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Pro Shop › Clubs, Grips, Shafts, Fitting › Callaway Introduces 3 New Tour Balls - Differences Based on Clubhead Speed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Callaway Introduces 3 New Tour Balls - Differences Based on Clubhead Speed - Page 2

post #19 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemicu View Post
 

 

 

Really? Would you care to explain how a ball allegedly optimised to 15% of your game works? 

I get how multi layer balls work for a variety of swing speeds - that is the intended purpose - but saying that a ball, or any ball, is optimised for a specific swing speed (and no, there isn't a equivalent iron swing speed) is plain wrong. Kind of dumb, especially when you consider one of their previous marketing lines was: "you can't argue with physics". It seems like Callaway has clearly defied the laws of physics - or defied the laws of golf. You can't change your ball mid hole to suit the swing speed that will be applied - let alone the trajectory, spin, shape and last but not least - the distance that may or may not be required. Like I said, nice try Callaway, but nothing other than "gimmick" passes this golfers BS radar.

You are entitled to an opinion ...  even a wrong-headed one.

 

Generally, a guy with a 105 Driver SS will hit the higher lofted and shorter clubs on a graduated scale. When making the ball, Callaway takes this sliding scale into consideration when making the ball and the layers required for that ball to perform at that level of "speed" for all the clubs in the bag.

 

They just don't make a ball for getting battered only by a driver. Making a ball is complicated - different layers and materials depending on the performance goals for different clubs in one golfer's bag.

post #20 of 51

I understand, having worked in the trade for several years- I just don't think you do. Even taking into account a players swing profile (e.g. the ubiquitous 105mph swinger) who may swing at lower speeds in correspondence with each descending iron length, the spin rates and trajectory are not an absolute and a variety of shots may been played with partial swings and shot shapes, from dolly chips to full out smoked 2-irons and every potential shot in between. The ball has no way of being matched to any one of those variables - but crucially, the ball in any range of index or scoring criteria will be hit more times with a putter than any other club. This factor alone makes advertising balls matched to a swing speed range pure marketing BS - and laughable. 

post #21 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemicu View Post
 

I understand, having worked in the trade for several years- I just don't think you do. Even taking into account a players swing profile (e.g. the ubiquitous 105mph swinger) who may swing at lower speeds in correspondence with each descending iron length, the spin rates and trajectory are not an absolute and a variety of shots may been played with partial swings and shot shapes, from dolly chips to full out smoked 2-irons and every potential shot in between. The ball has no way of being matched to any one of those variables - but crucially, the ball in any range of index or scoring criteria will be hit more times with a putter than any other club. This factor alone makes advertising balls matched to a swing speed range pure marketing BS - and laughable. 

 


That's why I used the word "Generally".


From your comments, I don't think you understand how different layers and materials affect the performance of the ball on different shots. You do not need to be "in the business" to have knowledge about the golf ball and the effect of different layers on performance and types of shots.


But thanks for your comments. Think what you want to think. We need not agree, and we do not agree on this issue.

post #22 of 51

We'll certainly have to agree to disagree. However, Callaway need to decide which element has any value in their sales pitch. They say the cover is optimised to aerodynamics - that has absolutely nothing to do with the other multiple layers to which you refer in relation to ball dynamics. In other words, the other four layers under the cover have zero effect on aerodynamics - the main selling point of the swing speed optimisation concept. Only elements that come into direct contact with airflow can have any effect on aerodynamics- inner layers don't. You can't argue with physics, Callaway.

post #23 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemicu View Post

We'll certainly have to agree to disagree. However, Callaway need to decide which element has any value in their sales pitch. They say the cover is optimised to aerodynamics - that has absolutely nothing to do with the other multiple layers to which you refer in relation to ball dynamics. In other words, the other four layers under the cover have zero effect on aerodynamics - the main selling point of the swing speed optimisation concept. Only elements that come into direct contact with airflow can have any effect on aerodynamics- inner layers don't. You can't argue with physics, Callaway.

They're not just advertising aerodynamics. I saw a commercial for these where they were touting the layers by having Phil Mickelson hit the ball, then go into some kind of odd expanded view with all the layers. They were talking about what the layers did in the background if I remember correctly.
post #24 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemicu View Post
 

We'll certainly have to agree to disagree.

 

No, there's no need to "agree to disagree." You're wrong. This isn't an opinion. It's facts.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzel View Post

You don't understand: the ball is not optimized for your tee shots alone.

 

I'm quoting only that because it's an accurate and valid response to you @Nemicu: you don't seem to understand. The ball is NOT optimized for only the driver.

 

I'll try one more time, and then I'm done.

 

Balls marked as "optimized for 105+" perform, for all golf clubs, when swung at faster speeds. They're likely a bit firmer and thus have a bit less spin, because the increased clubhead speed across the board adds more spin on its own, without needing help from the golf ball.

 

Similarly, a ball marked as "85-95 MPH" with the driver is softer and spins more with all clubs because the golfer clearly isn't hitting any of their clubs with the same speed as the 105 MPH driver guy, so he needs spin (etc.) across the board.

 

Callaway is NOT "optimizing" the ball to only 15% of your game. They're optimizing the balls to swing speeds - people who hit the ball far, medium, and short - regardless of the club you're using to check it.

 

They could have just as easily said "optimized for 90 MPH+ 6-iron clubhead speed players" except people are far more likely to know their driver clubhead speed than any other club in the bag.

post #25 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

Callaway is NOT "optimizing" the ball to only 15% of your game. They're optimizing the balls to swing speeds - people who hit the ball far, medium, and short - regardless of the club you're using to check it.

 

 

 

I think you are contradicting yourself again. At ANY swing speed, you are still only accounting for small percentage of your golf round.  Aerodynamics, layers, or any other component Callaway (or you) is touting as "optimised" have absolutely zero effect on shots played for the greatest majority of the round. That is chips and putts - that is a fact for every golfer at every level. So I would ask one last time: how is that ball optimised for anything? The answer is it isn't. That is not an opinion either - it is also a fact.

You can argue all you want, but all Callaway have developed is a sales angle based on peoples inability to realise what a golf ball does or which part of their game it is most important to. Bridgestone try a similar tack in alleged "ball fitting". Just about every other manufacturer has also stated that their latest and greatest ball has the most optimal dimple pattern making it their longest ball ever. They have also come and gone and no longer appear in their inventories. Why? because they are pure marketing gimmicks to get you to buy their ball. 

Titleist ProV1 is the best selling ball worldwide and is the best performing ball in their range - it's also suitable for the widest range of handicap levels and is not specific to any swing speed. That is why it is the most recommended ball by Titleist. Does everybody need to buy it then? No, because other factors such as colour, feel, and price are also factors that affect consumer choice and consequently other balls appear in their range. None of them are optimised for swing speeds either. None of them feature layers greater than 3. Titleist is the #1 sold and played golf ball worldwide at all levels. They know a thing or two about golf balls - they have proven that in and out of court against Callaway too. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. Don't forget to check back in a years time when the ProV1 is still the #1 ball and you're still wrong. 

post #26 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemicu View Post
 

 

I think you are contradicting yourself again. At ANY swing speed, you are still only accounting for small percentage of your golf round.  Aerodynamics, layers, or any other component Callaway (or you) is touting as "optimised" have absolutely zero effect on shots played for the greatest majority of the round. That is chips and putts - that is a fact for every golfer at every level. So I would ask one last time: how is that ball optimised for anything? The answer is it isn't. That is not an opinion either - it is also a fact.

You can argue all you want, but all Callaway have developed is a sales angle based on peoples inability to realise what a golf ball does or which part of their game it is most important to. Bridgestone try a similar tack in alleged "ball fitting". Just about every other manufacturer has also stated that their latest and greatest ball has the most optimal dimple pattern making it their longest ball ever. They have also come and gone and no longer appear in their inventories. Why? because they are pure marketing gimmicks to get you to buy their ball. 

Titleist ProV1 is the best selling ball worldwide and is the best performing ball in their range - it's also suitable for the widest range of handicap levels and is not specific to any swing speed. That is why it is the most recommended ball by Titleist. Does everybody need to buy it then? No, because other factors such as colour, feel, and price are also factors that affect consumer choice and consequently other balls appear in their range. None of them are optimised for swing speeds either. None of them feature layers greater than 3. Titleist is the #1 sold and played golf ball worldwide at all levels. They know a thing or two about golf balls - they have proven that in and out of court against Callaway too. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. Don't forget to check back in a years time when the ProV1 is still the #1 ball and you're still wrong. 

The urethane cover is only activated on most chips and putts, just like a Titleist.

 

The Callaway aerodynamic design helps on longer shots. The HEX design cover is also said to help in the wind.Titleist also has an aerodynamic design, but it is general optimization, not optimized for a trio of speed ranges.

 

Titleist is the #1 ball because it is an excellent ball, they market heavily and pay heavily. They market it as a ball for everyone. Is it? I don't know. They don't use any technical arguments like Callaway. They just say "it's a ball for every swingspeed" and don't offer a technical reason.

post #27 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post
 

The urethane cover is only activated on most chips and putts, just like a Titleist.

 

How is the outer part of a golf ball only "activated" on chips and putts? The inner cores are obviously not in play on those short shots, but how is the cover of a golf ball not "activated" on every shot?

post #28 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeph View Post

How is the outer part of a golf ball only "activated" on chips and putts? The inner cores are obviously not in play on those short shots, but how is the cover of a golf ball not "activated" on every shot?
I think it just makes more of a difference on short shots when compared to long ones. I could be dead wrong, but I'm guessing the spinrate difference between a urethane covered ball and some cheaper ball is greater (from a percentage standpoint) on chip shots than long shots. I figure it shouldn't make too much difference on tee shots since it's a smooth face and relatively low loft, but on irons shots I'd imagine it'll spin more same as on a chip.
post #29 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemicu View Post
 

I think you are contradicting yourself again.

 

I didn't contradict myself the first time, so no.

 

I also said I'd try one more time and then I was out, and I'm sticking to it. You're very wrong (and nobody's predicting this will end Titleist's run or anything, so play with the straw men on your own time please).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeph View Post
 

How is the outer part of a golf ball only "activated" on chips and putts? The inner cores are obviously not in play on those short shots, but how is the cover of a golf ball not "activated" on every shot?

 

This below:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzel View Post

I think it just makes more of a difference on short shots when compared to long ones. I could be dead wrong, but I'm guessing the spinrate difference between a urethane covered ball and some cheaper ball is greater (from a percentage standpoint) on chip shots than long shots. I figure it shouldn't make too much difference on tee shots since it's a smooth face and relatively low loft, but on irons shots I'd imagine it'll spin more same as on a chip.

 

The cover material doesn't matter much with clubs up to about a 5-iron or 6-iron, because there isn't a lot of shear forces, which the corners of the grooves and the actual metal of the club can interact with. At 6-iron on up, the shear forces increase, so a softer cover interacts differently than a firmer cover on shorter clubs, particularly those with wedges.

post #30 of 51
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeph View Post
 

 

How is the outer part of a golf ball only "activated" on chips and putts? The inner cores are obviously not in play on those short shots, but how is the cover of a golf ball not "activated" on every shot?

It was late at night -- I meant the urethane cover is the only layer that comes into play on putts and chips.

post #31 of 51

Oh honey hush. You're sounding all cranky. You'll be telling us next they float on water.

post #32 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

Not entirely sure how older players, or not that good of players would feel about having to pay $47 dollars a dozen for a ball designed for them. I am wondering if they are trying to get more players to play a premium golf ball, but I think S1 wont sell well. A lot of high handicappers who don't have the swing speed, wont bother buying a premium golf ball. 

 

Considering that I just bought Snake Eyes (Distance balls) for $8.97/dozen at Golfsmith, it's not likely I would purchase even the SR2 balls any time soon.

post #33 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemicu View Post
 

Oh honey hush. You're sounding all cranky. You'll be telling us next they float on water.

There are golf balls out there that do that. They're called floaters and some ranges have you hit them into a lake, which is pretty fun when you get them skipping.

 

Also, I'm not sure who you were talking to on the sounding cranky part. None of us are cranky, just a bit exasperated that you refuse to face facts.

post #34 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzel View Post
 

There are golf balls out there that do that. They're called floaters and some ranges have you hit them into a lake, which is pretty fun when you get them skipping.

 

Also, I'm not sure who you were talking to on the sounding cranky part. None of us are cranky, just a bit exasperated that you refuse to face facts.

Here's one fact for ya - The ProV1 was and still is the best selling ball worldwide and has never used the principle of fitting to a specific swing speed or player. It has been sold on the principle that fitting a ball to swing speed is a myth.  Hmmm....so they've been wrong all the time eh? Or maybe I'm the one in denial?

post #35 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemicu View Post
 

Here's one fact for ya - The ProV1 was and still is the best selling ball worldwide and has never used the principle of fitting to a specific swing speed or player. It has been sold on the principle that fitting a ball to swing speed is a myth.  Hmmm....so they've been wrong all the time eh? Or maybe I'm the one in denial?

It's the best selling ball because 80+% (estimate) of the tour pro's use it and we know amateurs like to use the same equipment the pro's do.

post #36 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemicu View Post
 

Here's one fact for ya - The ProV1 was and still is the best selling ball worldwide and has never used the principle of fitting to a specific swing speed or player. It has been sold on the principle that fitting a ball to swing speed is a myth.  Hmmm....so they've been wrong all the time eh? Or maybe I'm the one in denial?

 

Titleist has changed in the past few years. Adding the "Velocity" model, and changing the "NXT" models. Titliest clearly have golf balls designed for slower swing speeds, they just don't advertise it, or make them in the same models like lets say Bridgestone. 

 

I do think this is one of the first times a company is making a "Premium" golf ball for slower swing speeds. I am sure Titliest would want players to buy the PRO-V's, but they clearly have made models that are designed for higher handicap players. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Clubs, Grips, Shafts, Fitting
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Pro Shop › Clubs, Grips, Shafts, Fitting › Callaway Introduces 3 New Tour Balls - Differences Based on Clubhead Speed