Lake Balls Performance

[lumpuckeroo]

Originally Posted by LankyLefty

I played a box of recycled Titleists. They were a bit shorter than I expected but had a good feel around the green, very soft, high spin ect.. I read online that balls submerged for as little as 1 week lose 8% distance over identical new balls and that balls submerged for several months could lose 15% or more distance however Im not sure that is completely true.

I read the same thing, I can say from experience, I bought some experience balls and they were junk.  I'll never do that again, you can buy good balls for a reasonable price, I'll play new balls.

[MiniBlueDragon]

The AD333's I bought a couple of weeks back have been fine thus far. I'm not going to write a definitive glowing report until I've played a range of them but to me there's little difference visually, with spin, with distance and I even checked the weight and they're the same as new balls.

Could be that my handicap is crap enough not to tell the difference however...

*shrug*

[Gerald]

hmmm .... did you buy 2nd-hand AD333 ???? Why ...... they are already cheapo for a decent quality ball ?!?!?? Last year I played a lot with the AD333 and recently bought another couple of dozens. IMHO the AD333 is a distance ball, but the cover is slightly softer, which means it is spinning a bit more than average and I like the muted sound while putting.

Besides that the comments on balls that have been lying in the water come from people that have some benefits from either manufactors or from sellers of lake balls, the first group is talking about 8-15% loss in distance and the second group says there is about no difference.

Go figure .... !

[MiniBlueDragon]

Yep I know they're cheap already but I was curious as to whether lake balls really make much difference or not.

£19 for 24 AD333 lake balls is still cheaper than £28 for 24 so if the lack of performance isn't to bad why pay more?

I agree about distance and spin. I was recommended them when I took my first ever golf lesson and have played them since then as I've never had my swing speed measured. I did play a Z-Star the last time out which was LOVELY but at that price and the frequency at which balls get lost on local courses I can't justify that type of spend. On my local courses balls have been known to get lost even with a dead straight tee shot to the middle of the fairway somehow. lol

Ball manufacturers will tell you that balls lose performance because they want you to buy new balls.

Lake ball seller will tell you that there's no difference because they want you to buy second hand balls.

Unfortunately without a proper independent trial there's no way to know for sure. Even with my own trial there's a margin of error as my handicap is so high my ball distances are always a few feet different.

[Paradox]

refinished and recycled balls are MUCH different in my opinion.  I would never play a refinished ball in a million years because they always feel different than the ball originally did.  I've played with LOTS of different Pro V1(x)s recycled and new and notice no difference as it pertains to changing my scores.

BTW, an 8% loss of distance on a 250 yard drive is ~20 yards...I've NEVER seen that happen with any ball I've ever hit, new or used.  Maybe a couple yards difference but I've yet to meet someone who can hit the ball the same way everytime in order to tell the difference.

Like I said, i've hit many different balls and my distances are the same average with each club using a recycle or a brand new ball...

[Polygoon]

Bumping this thread.

I know the commentaries vary on wether to use lakeballs or not. But for me as a bogey golfer AND a student I'm not going to invest shitloads of money in proper balls. I end up loosing them anyway.

What are the best lakeball shops that also ship to the European Continent??

[rkim291968]

I will never buy refinished balls.   I can't trust what is actually under the cover.   Used balls are OK in my book as long as they do not have scratches, cuts.

[Archie Bunker]

I can recall Golf Digest testing water-soaked balls many years ago (days of balata and surlyn covers). The balata balls suffered the worst, losing about 10 yards after a short period. The surlyn covered balls did somewhat better, but also degraded. The reason was water uptake by the balls themselves, making them slightly heavier. Not too long ago, TaylorMade made a big deal about a line of balls they packaged in airtight containers, and claimed that they flew farther than balls packaged in standard cardboard sleeves. Maybe true, but that packaging idea disappeared within the year. Another reason manufacturers hate refurbished balls is that some re sprayed with a gloss coating. This fills the dimples slightly, making them shallower, and altering the flight and carry characteristics. Using one of these "refurbished" balls may lead you to dislike that brand and not buy it. A valid reason for being against refurbished balls. Don't know about today's urethane-covered balls, but I would guess that you could weigh both new and lake versions, and compare their weights. If the lake version weighs more due to water uptake, it would likely not fly as far.

[Club Rat]

"If it's GREY, don't play".

This was a slogan of Performance Indicator who did studies of the effect of golf balls which were submerged in water over a duration timeframe of a week or longer.

Their studies found water would become trapped in the outer layer in micro cracks and affected spin rates which causes loss of distance.

The concept was marketable for discouraging sales of the high volume of reclaimed balls from lakes/ponds and hopefully increase new ball sales.

They are still in business but no longer pursue marketing to ball manufacturers of their technology which would change the color of the ball to a light grayish color.

They still have a website which describes the process. http://www.performanceindicator.com/#COLOR CHANGE TECHNOLOGY

Club Rat

[Club Rat]

Update - here is a link to Performance Indicator with a description of water effects of reclaimed water balls.

http://www.performanceindicator.com/golf/PI_techoverview.pdf

[billchao]

Update - here is a link to Performance Indicator with a description of water effects of reclaimed water balls.

http://www.performanceindicator.com/golf/PI_techoverview.pdf

That's interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[FaldosEgo]

I pretty much only buy recycled balls. I'm not paying 3-4 dollars per ball.

[cristphoto]

@LankyLefty : Whenever Golfalot.com says anything about lake balls or actually anything on golf what-so-ever, I think ...... who is paying them to say such things, just watch all the video tests ....... it nothing else than marketing sponsored by manufactors.

Mentioning a test (what test ?) without showing the details and who performed the test, including the data, means NOTHING !

There is ZERO proof that lake balls perform less than the new ball that you used last week and isn't lost yet.

Balls today are so closed material to day that allthough we all would assume that lying them in the water for a few weeks, would make a difference, but as none of us are robots....... maybe there is no difference at all ....... only that manufactors would like us to believe lake balls are worse than the current used balls in your bag (bought new).

I am just trying to find out if there ever was a research on this, I can imagine the manufactors did actually perform such tests, and maybe the outcome was that there is no performance issue at all, but it is not in the interest of manufactors to let us know the thruth, they want to sell dozens of brandnew balls.......

There is plenty of proof that water balls lose performance. I've seen many tests done over the years and EVERY test shows a loss of performance. The biggest problem with water balls is the buyer has no idea how long the ball has been submerged. Plus was it in the water during freezing conditions?  Buying water balls is a false economy.