Pro V1 and swing speed

[Bourbon and Coke]

It is, but it's not an extreme one.

How many players are consistent enough in any category other than putting that the

ball is the biggest variable in this test? I doubt most players are even consistent enough there. Certainly we'll find differences in a scientific test, but only complete isolation of the ball variable is going to show a significant difference. This is "conventional wisdom" that just isn't wise. How many strokes does the average player lose that could be corrected by the ball? You can look at putts per round and try to argue the importance around the greens, but how many of these greenside strokes are strokes than anyone can make or miss? If you've got every other part of your game figured out, I understand. But for most players (the ones who never break 100, y'know, the average guys), it just won't make enough of a difference to justify the discussion.

[SteelDriver]

How many players are consistent enough in any category other than putting that the ball is the biggest variable in this test? I doubt most players are even consistent enough there.

thats why you start at the green and work back to the tee. You say players are mostly consistent in putting, yet most arent even consistent there. im sure they're even less consistent off the tee if that's the case, making it absurd to choose a ball based on the most inconsistent aspect of your game.

lofted clubs are easiest to hit, they also happen to be the ones that put you in scoring position the most. putter then wedges then short irons. take care of the clubs that do the dirty work and suit the ball to them. the driver and long irons will forsake you any chance they get.

[iacas]

How many players are consistent enough in any category other than putting that the

They're consistent enough to notice the differences in their short game far more than off the tee.

This is "conventional wisdom" that just isn't wise. How many strokes does the average player lose that could be corrected by the ball? You can look at putts per round and try to argue the importance around the greens, but how many of these greenside strokes are strokes than anyone can make or miss?

Look, it's simple. Your advice to pick the best ball off the tee flies in the face of what every ball manufacturer suggests you do, common sense, and logic.

This is something that's about as close to a fact as an opinion can get, so that makes your opinion to choose the best ball off the tee and ignore the rest about as close to wrong as an opinion can get.

[Bourbon and Coke]

Look, it's simple. Your advice to pick the best ball off the tee flies in the face of what every ball manufacturer suggests you do, common sense, and logic.

I didn't give that as advice. I just said there are counter examples and that it isn't always true. I didn't say the OP was one such example, just that such an example could exist in the 12987128761871231231412 golfers in the world.

The more words that get put in my mouth, though, the more right you are in the wrong argument.

[iacas]

The more words that get put in my mouth, though, the more right you are in the wrong argument.

You said that starting at the green and working backwards was, well, "But that's far from the case for many golfers, and is probably just bad advice for the majority of the world's players." You compared short game performance to a matter of "inches" but performance off the tee to being out of bounds or not. Neither of those make any sense.

"The majority" is a lot of people, and yet for probably 99.9% of people out there, you'd never start on the tee and work towards the green. Perhaps if the words that came out of your own mouth (so to speak) were made more sense, we wouldn't be putting any in ourselves. Might there be one guy who could somehow be better fit starting from the tee and working forward? MAYBE somewhere... but a huge, huge portion of people are best served by the generic, "over-simplified" advice to start from the green and work backwards.

[msd3075]

You said that starting at the green and working backwards was, well, "But that's far from the case for many golfers, and is probably just bad advice for the majority of the world's players." You compared short game performance to a matter of "inches" but performance off the tee to being out of bounds or not. Neither of those make any sense.

If you have to pick between green-backward or tee-forward, the green-backward fitting would be best. That doesn't mean everyone benefits like the manufacturer claims. Most pros and scratch golfers are also so out of touch with the "average" golfer that to me anything they would say on the topic doens't apply.

The average golfer has no clue how to put spin on the ball. The average golfer has no clue how to make a smooth putting stroke. The average golfer has no clue how to hit a proper bunker shot. Until they learn these basics, it won't matter what type of ball they are using around the green. And if they do practice and improve in these areas, to me they will be better than the "average" golfer. If a golfer is to that point in which a ball fitting makes a difference, they are no longer the "average" golfer. That means the question here isn't which way the fitting should be conducted but whether or not the golfer in question (the "average" golfer) is good enough that any fitting would make a difference.

[iacas]

The average golfer has no clue how to put spin on the ball. The average golfer has no clue how to make a smooth putting stroke. The average golfer has no clue how to hit a proper bunker shot.

And the average golfer isn't the least bit concerned about ball fitting.

I know it's an assumption, but I assumed that this discussion was kind of limited to the people were bothering to try to fit themselves with a golf ball. To those who don't/aren't, you're right: who cares what ball they hit? We can't debate how to fit a ball to someone who isn't doing a ball fitting. That makes no sense.

If a golfer is to that point in which a ball fitting makes a difference, they are no longer the "average" golfer.

My point exactly. Or my assumption exactly, anyway.

That means the question here isn't which way the fitting should be conducted but whether or not the golfer in question (the "average" golfer) is good enough that any fitting would make a difference.

And that's where we diverge. Again, and not to beat a dead horse, but I kind of assumed that if someone was asking ball fitting questions and fitting themselves with a ball, they had decided they were good enough.

I wasn't even talking about those "average" guys who can't break 100 who wouldn't benefit from a ball fitting. I assumed we were all excluding them from the outset with the very topic.

[msd3075]

And the average golfer isn't the least bit concerned about ball fitting.

I guess I just don't buy as heavily into the "equipment breakthroughs" as many on here seem to. Part of it might be that with my job (drilling engineer) I have to listen to service companies go on and on about how they've made improvements to their tools, how they can increase this variable but this percentage rate, can decrease that variable but another even bigger percentage, and at the end of the day they'll plant the damn tools at the bottom of my hole just the same as they did with the old tools.

The one variable that makes the absolute biggest impact on the golf course is the golfer him/herself. People were shooting under par with persimmon woods, old blade irons, and wound balls. It'd be nice if a lot of people out in the golfing world would remember that next time they are about to swipe their credit card.