I Weighed 100 Golf Balls and Here's What I Found

[dennyjones]

2 minutes ago, TRUCKER said:

So you trust someone who makes NEW balls, and spent all of 15 seconds saying pond balls aren't as good. As opposed to a real test done by an unbiased phd at the university level. Ok...🤦‍♂️ 

The guy that patented the Prov1,  hell ya.     Did you even look at the video where he said water does get into the core?   The water can make the golf ball soft and heavier.    

[TRUCKER]

All you guys on here talk about FACTS. Anytime someone has an OPINION on something you all circle the wagons and repeat "We only debate facts here". Also what about his reason for choosing the right ball should be based on 100 yards and in. He actually referenced the old "driver only accounts for 14 shots, so that's not where you score". That's BLASPHEMY around here. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, TRUCKER said:

So you trust someone who makes NEW balls, and spent all of 15 seconds saying pond balls aren't as good. As opposed to a real test done by an unbiased phd at the university level. Ok...🤦‍♂️ 

Dean has advanced degrees in this area, too, you know…?

1 hour ago, TRUCKER said:

All you guys on here talk about FACTS. Anytime someone has an OPINION on something you all circle the wagons and repeat "We only debate facts here".

You raise a good point with the facts. So let me address that first.

When "new" information comes along that contradicts the old "beliefs" or old information (older rigorous studies I've seen DO show that pond balls perform worse, though these may have been pre-urethane studies), it's subject to more scrutiny than information which says the same thing or confirms.

Right now, in the minds of some of us (at least me), the score is something like X studies have said pond balls perform worse vs. 1 study that says there's no difference. If x is even 1, then there's reason to doubt. Until there are reasons to throw out some of the "X" stuff (maybe they were all done on balata balls, so they're outdated), right now we have ONE study to talk about. That's not enough to say "sitting in a pond for five months doesn't affect performance" a fact. It's ONE study.

An interesting study, and one that those highly interested in here should give weight to.

But it's one study.

1 hour ago, TRUCKER said:

Also what about his reason for choosing the right ball should be based on 100 yards and in. He actually referenced the old "driver only accounts for 14 shots, so that's not where you score". That's BLASPHEMY around here. 

If all balls go about the same distance off the tee (and they almost all do, within a few yards of each other - especially if you stick to the firmer balls so long as they spin enough for your swing speed), then the only differentiator is iron play and short game and putting performance. And so if iron play is about the same… then that leaves inside 100 yards performance and feel as the biggest differentiator.

I would never tell anyone to play a ball that goes 4 yards farther off the tee if they hate the short game performance and feel.

You seem to have some very weird ideas about how "we" operate here, starting with the fact that you seem to think there's only one thought when in reality there are as many thoughts as there are people… or more than that, as I'm capable of saying that two theories may both be credible until further testing or insight is gained. And I bet many others are too.

1 hour ago, TRUCKER said:

So you trust someone who makes NEW balls, and spent all of 15 seconds saying pond balls aren't as good. As opposed to a real test done by an unbiased phd at the university level. Ok...🤦‍♂️ 

To be fair the test was done by an undergrad with oversight by a professor. And the actual testing was done without their direct supervision at a remote location.

[TRUCKER]

So. He didn't do a test.

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, TRUCKER said:

So. He didn't do a test.

Wow, no, he's probably done thousands.

[TRUCKER]

Fine. My point is Mr. Snell did no testing. All he did was make an anecdotal statement. Is he more credible than some jo-blow? Of course. I just found it funny that from that 15 seconds he spent on pond balls, we get comments like "yeah, that's what I figured", or "yeah, I've held watered balls before, they're heavier". 

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

Wow, no, he's probably done thousands.

No, he hasn't done a "pond ball test". If he did why didn't he reference it in the video?

[iacas]

39 minutes ago, TRUCKER said:

My point is Mr. Snell did no testing.

That's not assumption on which I'd base even a $10 bet.

Like I said, he's probably done thousands of tests. Understanding the materials they're working with is important, and if you've toured, say, Titleist's ball manufacturing plants you'll see how much attention they give to every environmental component, including the humidity of the air lest anything absorb (or lose, I guess) some moisture.

Why not reference it? Because that's not the point of the video. It's a quick Q&A, and the question asked to him wasn't even about pond balls, it was about shelf life of balls sitting on dry shelves. The pond bit was an "aside."

42 minutes ago, TRUCKER said:

we get comments like "yeah, that's what I figured", or "yeah, I've held watered balls before, they're heavier". 

I think you may have missed the point of this post:

Even though the comment right after it should have clued you in a little…

And nobody said "figured" at all except you. Someone used that word once otherwise in the topic, but not in that context at all.

[rehmwa]

On 12/5/2019 at 12:33 PM, TRUCKER said:

A PHD from Michigan ran the study. It seems pretty legit. I get your point though.

Probably a PhD in comparative women's studies and Social Environmental Hysteria from a California college.

On 12/5/2019 at 7:26 PM, Bonvivant said:

Harkens back to the days of liquid filled balls 🤣

Fill them with scotch and we are talking.  I need a ball retrieval tool, a clean rag, a drill and a straw.