Lake Balls Performance

[Gerald]

The wildest stories are told about degerated quality of balls that were collected from waterhazards........

But what is the real story.

Some of these so called Lake Balls have been in the water for less then a few weeks or a few months, what is the real impact on the ball's quality.

I can imagine there is almost no influence at all.

Anyone knows more, than wildest stories ?

[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.

[Gerald]

Yep I know, 8% - 15%, these are the "stories" but do they come from research or are they "marketing stories" of the manufactories and people just repeating the "marketing stories" long enough, that the rumour became the truth........

I can hardly imagine a modern ball to suffer from lying in the water a few weeks and it may well be that a ball also lose 8% distance from being played 15 holes, compared to the performance of a totally new ball.

Besides that there might also be some difference between recycled/refished balls (like the ones you are refering to) and cleaned lake balls.

[LankyLefty]

Originally Posted by GolfAlot.com

Lake balls - are they just as good as new?

There is no doubting that lake balls seem an attractive investment, but are they just as good as new? Well the answer is no. Tests into the effect that water had on balls resting at the bottom of lakes were carried out and they discovered that balls that have spent time in water travel less than new, or simply dry golf balls. Balls that had spent 8 days in water produced drives six yards less than the benchmark ball. Balls that had spent 3 months submerged in water travelled 12 yards less, and balls kept in water for 6 months went 15 yards less. This may sound like a sizeable difference, however for the average golfer a lake ball can be a very good investment. Considering the price of new golf balls in the market today, buying lake balls is a cheap way to enjoy the game. The chance to pay a lot less for some of the best balls around is one that many golfers take and don't regret. Many lake ball companies re-cover balls in a shiny gloss that makes them appear new. This cover will wear and the ball may discolour slightly, but will not affect the balls flight or roll. There is no doubt that the occasion lake ball can be a very sensible investment, but just remember the next time you scoop a Pro V1 from the lake that all that glitters is not gold.

[sean_miller]

Why anyone would tinker with their swing, their club setup, and pretty much every other variable under the sun, then play lake balls is beyond me. Is it to prove a point or something? Ridiculous!!

[Gerald]

@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 !

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Why anyone would tinker with their swing, their club setup, and pretty much every other variable under the sun, then play lake balls is beyond me. Is it to prove a point or something? Ridiculous!!

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.......

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Gerald

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.......

Really? Someone provides proof, then you reject it based on your own opinion?

Found balls feel totally random when struck well, and anyone who can hit the ball with a repeatable swing can tell you the same thing. Sure some found balls are still good, but many others are not. What standard do the balls these re-sellers are packaging have to meet? Their standards or those of the original manufacturer? If you want to fill your bag with lake balls that may or may not be in a condition similar to when they were first sold/hit/lost that's your 100% choice.  Most ball manufacturers I think just want the re-sellers to somehow mark the ball so it's obviously not new so that any performance issues related to sitting in a lake are not their responsibility.

If you want to buy top brand lake balls as an alternative to similarly priced brand new second tier balls, go for it. If you find those balls work then you certainly don't need a study to confirm your decision.

[Gerald]

Quote:

> If you want to buy top brand lake balls as an alternative to similarly priced brand new second tier balls,

> go for it. If you find those balls work then you certainly don't need a study to confirm your decision.

> However, based on your erratic wedge, iron, driver, and hybrid distances (based on the threads you start),

> why take a chance? Seriously, I have no interest in what ball you play (ZERO actually), but why be so OCD

> with your clubs then buy a used ball? It's just really really weird.

I actually play new balls (only) and recently moved to a cheaper ball for casual rounds like the Srixon AD333 and Bridgestone e5 and for tournaments I mostly use the 2011 Pro V1x (new) ...... I just was interested to see some real tests on lake balls, like the best quality Pro V1(x), that can be bought at about the price of he e5/AD333 etc.....

You say someone showed proof, but I didn't see any proof, "lots" of opinions and people talking after each other........

This afternoon I played with a Pro V1 (2009) lake ball, shot 8 pars, 2 birdies, 7 bogeys and 1 double, not too bad ..... nothing wrong with that ball, hard to tell if I would have played better with a brandnew ball...... but I had the double at our hardest par 4, hit my second shot in a waterhazard (maybe she just wanted to get back in the water), dropped one, hit it close and just missed the bogey putt for a tap in double.....

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Gerald

Quote:

I actually play new balls (only) and recently moved to a cheaper ball for casual rounds like the Srixon AD333 and Bridgestone e5 and for tournaments I mostly use the 2011 Pro V1x (new) ...... I just was interested to see some real tests on lake balls, like the best quality Pro V1(x), that can be bought at about the price of he e5/AD333 etc.....

You say someone showed proof, but I didn't see any proof, "lots" of opinions and people talking after each other........

This afternoon I played with a Pro V1 (2009) lake ball, shot 8 pars, 2 birdies, 7 bogeys and 1 double, not too bad ..... nothing wrong with that ball, hard to tell if I would have played better with a brandnew ball...... but I had the double at our hardest par 4, hit my second shot in a waterhazard (maybe she just wanted to get back in the water), dropped one, hit it close and just missed the bogey putt for a tap in double.....

That's a decent round, but like the quality (or lack thereof) of lake balls, there's no proof you didn't shoot a 110 with 10 preferred lies and a dozen 3-putts. It's the internet after all.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

That's a decent round, but like the quality (or lack thereof) of lake balls, there's no proof you didn't shoot a 110 with 10 preferred lies and a dozen 3-putts. It's the internet after all.

Same with mentioning test results without showing the test

[Gerald]

I just saw a test by Advance Golf Solutions LLC, Saragota, Florida performed in 2009 (they say they test for many manufactors) and their conclusion was that the difference is minimal, the pricing is totally different........ I don't know this company and I do also not know who paid for the test (maybe it was the company selling the lakeballs ).........

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Gerald

I just saw a test by Advance Golf Solutions LLC, Saragota, Florida performed in 2009 (they say they test for many manufactors) and their conclusion was that the difference is minimal, the pricing is totally different........ I don't know this company and I do also not know who paid for the test (maybe it was the company selling the lakeballs ).........

Those results make it appear used balls are okay. Did they have any stats on durability or spin? It doesn't really matter for me since I tend to lose a ball before the round is done either way and I try to minimize spin and play for a bit of release. I'm not the intended audience for the Pro V1 in the first place.

[Gerald]

Well I personally have some doubts about the results, it is hard to imagine that the order of performance is always the same, I can imagine there is less spin in the 6 iron and or wedge, so in that case the outcome might be different ........ but it will be very depending on who is paying for the test, the original manufactor will state the differences to be larger, while the lakeball reseller wit state the differences are very minimal.......

[Gerald]

Hmmmm I also found the test results at knetgolf com, looks like all (or a lot) of companies selling the lake balls are using this testresults by showing them at their websites to sell lake balls ........

Tests were conducted by Advanced Golf Solutions LLC. an independent certified golf ball testing facility in Sarasota, Florida USA
Date of test: November 17		Temperature Range: 79F to 83F
Humidity Range: 49% to 54%		Wind Direction: ESE
Wind Speed: 3.2 MPH to 6.4 MPH		Wind Effect: Minimal Tail / Crossing
Tests were conducted by cannon for consistent RPM at an 18% launch angle with 0% side axis and at 57 PSI.

But when I google for Advanced Golf Solutions LLC, I can not find a certified golf ball testing facillity, but only a webshop !!!!! uhhhhhhhhh ......

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Gerald

Well I personally have some doubts about the results, it is hard to imagine that the order of performance is always the same, I can imagine there is less spin in the 6 iron and or wedge, so in that case the outcome might be different ........ but it will be very depending on who is paying for the test, the original manufactor will state the differences to be larger, while the lakeball reseller wit state the differences are very minimal.......

It's all relative. Some players don't hit consistent enough shots to tell the difference and others do. If someone told you a company conducted a study showing Pine Meadow (or whatever) irons were almost as consistent as Titleist AP2s, would they have been on your radar when looking for new irons?

[Clambake]

Try here: http://www.performanceindicator.com/golf/

Select the tab called "Saturation" and then click on the PDF link - it has some results from tests and comments from what the ball manufacturers have found in their testing.

[LankyLefty]

Im not anti lake ball or anything but Id have to agree that they feel somewhat inconsistent to me.

My other gripe would be that the only classification system for them is how scratched the surface is. I'm not sure if it is possible but id much prefer a classification system based on more then just looks.

[Gerald]

Personally I don't care about balls much when I am in a social round of golf, just any mid spin ball or a high spin ball with some little damage will do just fine, but when really practice something in the course or playing in a serious setting, I go for a brandnew high spin ball ...... then I am sure it is not the ball !