Illegal for a Man to Play With a Ladies Golf Ball?

[Casualgolfer]

4 hours ago, ncates00 said:

You're not getting the point.  Swing speed is irrelevant.  Softer balls have less compression and therefore less ball speed.  It's really not hard to grasp.  A firmer golf ball has better smash factor, leading to more ball speed.  You will also see better spin with wedges (a golfer's ability notwithstanding), too.

Now, a cheap ball v. a premium ball will not be gigantic, but the premium balls will have more ball speed and better overall performance.  Your anecdote about your longest drives doesn't really fit; there are other variables at play, i.e., strike, face to path, angle of attack, backspin, wind, course conditions, etc., etc.  Nonetheless, as stated, when you isolate merely the performance of the ball, the premium ball is superior to the cheaper ball.

So if swing speed is irrelevant then those 80 year old guys out there should be playing firm premium balls? I think compression rating isn't a linear measurement in relationship to distance and swing speed. If we were all robots hitting on a track man then MAYBE.... However you can't discount first hand review. If I can carry 340+ with a pro v or a duo soft what does it matter anyway lol. 

[ncates00]

30 minutes ago, Casualgolfer said:

So if swing speed is irrelevant then those 80 year old guys out there should be playing firm premium balls?

Yes, if they want a better performing ball.  What relevance is swing speed or the age of the golfer with respect to how a ball is manufactured?

 

31 minutes ago, Casualgolfer said:

I think compression rating isn't a linear measurement in relationship to distance and swing speed

I think you're wrong.  Look at how golf balls are manufactured.

 

31 minutes ago, Casualgolfer said:

If we were all robots hitting on a track man then MAYBE

Relevance?  Not a strong argument.  Normal people buy premium balls every day, and many, myself included, own a simulator.

 

32 minutes ago, Casualgolfer said:

However you can't discount first hand review.

I can, and I am discounting your anecdote about not seeing a difference.  I've already said why previously.

 

33 minutes ago, Casualgolfer said:

If I can carry 340+ with a pro v or a duo soft what does it matter anyway lol. 

For reasons I've already said, if you weren't paying attention.  However, I've conceded that the premium ball would not have an earth-shattering advantage, but there would be a measurable difference, notwithstanding a golfer's own ability (after all, as I have already stated, there are other factors that determine where the ball goes--YOU as the golfer).  Indeed, maybe you didn't see a difference, but did you measure all of your data points with each shot with each ball?  I doubt it.  Did you calculate weather conditions, roll out, hitting terrain, etc?  Likely impossible.  It wouldn't be a fair comparison though if you simply take a ball out to the course and hit away without attempting to isolate the ball's performance.  That's why people hit on simulators and measure strike.  After all, as humans, our swings and abilities vary day to day and even shot to shot.  

I say all this to say, again, and I'm moving on because you're either ignoring what I'm saying or denying science, the premium ball offers better performance over the cheaper ball.  It might not be significant enough for many recreational golfers to justify spending additional money, but there is a measurable difference.  Whether you choose to spend the money is up to you.

[Casualgolfer]

9 hours ago, ncates00 said:

Yes, if they want a better performing ball.  What relevance is swing speed or the age of the golfer with respect to how a ball is manufactured?

 

I think you're wrong.  Look at how golf balls are manufactured.

 

Relevance?  Not a strong argument.  Normal people buy premium balls every day, and many, myself included, own a simulator.

 

I can, and I am discounting your anecdote about not seeing a difference.  I've already said why previously.

 

For reasons I've already said, if you weren't paying attention.  However, I've conceded that the premium ball would not have an earth-shattering advantage, but there would be a measurable difference, notwithstanding a golfer's own ability (after all, as I have already stated, there are other factors that determine where the ball goes--YOU as the golfer).  Indeed, maybe you didn't see a difference, but did you measure all of your data points with each shot with each ball?  I doubt it.  Did you calculate weather conditions, roll out, hitting terrain, etc?  Likely impossible.  It wouldn't be a fair comparison though if you simply take a ball out to the course and hit away without attempting to isolate the ball's performance.  That's why people hit on simulators and measure strike.  After all, as humans, our swings and abilities vary day to day and even shot to shot.  

I say all this to say, again, and I'm moving on because you're either ignoring what I'm saying or denying science, the premium ball offers better performance over the cheaper ball.  It might not be significant enough for many recreational golfers to justify spending additional money, but there is a measurable difference.  Whether you choose to spend the money is up to you.

Go watch Rick Shiels's video comparing the Callaway supersofts, chrome soft, and chromesoft x..... Guess which one carried the furthest off the driver on his GC Quad? Yep the cheap one. It produces much less spin like I said it does for me. I have played all the premium balls as well but don't see any measurable gains except for chipping where they check much faster on good strikes.

[ncates00]

37 minutes ago, Casualgolfer said:

Guess which one carried the furthest off the driver on his GC Quad? Yep the cheap one. It produces much less spin like I said it does for me.

Again, there are other factors that determine distance.  Lowering spin on a simulator is a "cheap" way of doing it, not to mention your own delivery matters most. 

You're sneakily and conveniently dodging the point of contention though, by 1) only talking about distance and 2) seeing distance only via spin.  I own a gc2 and know all too well how low spin numbers are highly favored on simulators.  We were talking about compression rates and how a firmer ball (premium) has more ball speed and that premium balls also have better wedge spin.  Of course, given optimal launch conditions, you can get better distance via lowering your spin; however, a premium ball can also be a low spinner (see Titleist's en dash ball and other manufacturer's low spin balls) and will also give you more ball speed via the firmer compression.

Bringing it back, hence, everyone benefits (should they choose to do so) from a premium ball's better overall performance. 

45 minutes ago, Casualgolfer said:

Callaway

And go look at Callaway's quality control issues with golf balls too.

[Casualgolfer]

Think everyone would agree callaway's premium balls are the chromesoft versions. You are also missing the point. I said the lower compression ball doesn't hurt my distance and it doesnt. You said since it wasn't on a monitor I couldn't compare real world experience so I gave you a head to head test done on high dollar equipment and it showed the same thing I see in real life. You think Shiels was favoring the supersoft and wanted them to go further? If everyone was 100% able to optimize their performance then yes the "premium" ball may be a better choice for all around results. However, the vast majority of people aren't going to work tirelessly on a monitor to to try to fit their swing perfectly to use an expensive ball. Most people would rather use the ball that best fits their swing and what their intended level of play is. Also, most people aren't going to give a flip how a certain ball performs on a launch monitor. They are going to put it in play on the course and note the results. If a lower "compression" ball has less spin in real life and goes further for them in real world conditions then that may be the ball they prefer to play and save some money while they are at it. I was just supplying real world results as tested by me during my golf rounds. Yes I can hit a prov1 a long dang way but I can also hit a ball that is half the cost the same distance or more and not need the extra extra spin around greens.  I also think those softer compression balls are straighter for me then premium balls... Now there is a can of worms.

[rehmwa]

the sooner they just ditch the terms "ladies" and "mens" in regards to tees or balls the the sooner we can just worry about performance and correct selection -

marketting sometimes just kills reality

[ncates00]

On 1/10/2020 at 10:56 AM, Casualgolfer said:

Think everyone would agree callaway's premium balls are the chromesoft versions. You are also missing the point. I said the lower compression ball doesn't hurt my distance and it doesnt. You said since it wasn't on a monitor I couldn't compare real world experience so I gave you a head to head test done on high dollar equipment and it showed the same thing I see in real life. You think Shiels was favoring the supersoft and wanted them to go further? If everyone was 100% able to optimize their performance then yes the "premium" ball may be a better choice for all around results. However, the vast majority of people aren't going to work tirelessly on a monitor to to try to fit their swing perfectly to use an expensive ball. Most people would rather use the ball that best fits their swing and what their intended level of play is. Also, most people aren't going to give a flip how a certain ball performs on a launch monitor. They are going to put it in play on the course and note the results. If a lower "compression" ball has less spin in real life and goes further for them in real world conditions then that may be the ball they prefer to play and save some money while they are at it. I was just supplying real world results as tested by me during my golf rounds. Yes I can hit a prov1 a long dang way but I can also hit a ball that is half the cost the same distance or more and not need the extra extra spin around greens.  I also think those softer compression balls are straighter for me then premium balls... Now there is a can of worms.

🤦‍♂️

[Ben]

On 4/1/2011 at 4:59 PM, SAGolfLuvr said:

Just a question I was asked last week. I wonder what the golf community thinks.

Ask your buddy the amount of strokes a left-handed golfer is penalized when he is caught playing a right-handed ball...

[paperclip]

Um, who cares? Doesn't matter

 

[Yukari]

First of all, there is no "lady's" golfball per se.  It's all a marketing scam.

Second I didn't know a golfball would notice who is hitting it.

But more importantly if it fits your swing or if you want to play whichever type of golf ball, who cares?  Only reason I play a particular golfball is because I like the spin and the distance it gives me overall.  My #1 criteria is how it behaves around the green, namely chip shots and putts.  It has to spin a lot so it stops quickly and it must be soft so it feels like I am not hitting a rock.

[Patch]

A few decades ago, I got caught using a "Lady Precept" ball by the authorities. The authorities be our group of golfing friends.. 

I was tried, and convicted at the 19th hole by my peers.. I was fined 4 pitchers of beer. Luckily Alcatraz had already been closed down before my misdeed. 

[mcanadiens]

12 minutes ago, Patch said:

Luckily Alcatraz had already been closed down before my misdeed. 

Nah. ... You just got lucky.  Bribing with beer was the smart play.

This place is ADX Florence, "The Alcatraz of the Rockies". Truth be told you'd rather spend time in the original.

Funny to think that playing the ole pink ball could land you on the other side of a six-foot concrete wall from El Chapo.