Minimum swing speed for ProV1 or ProV1x

[Hatchman]

Yes indeed, I take non approved balls and bats (illegal) out of games.  When equipment cross over, they become dangerous to player safety and confines of a venue, possibly.  

[iacas]

1 hour ago, acerimusdux said:

And so at this point in time, I think recent lower compression balls are achieving the same initial velocity limits, and ball speeds generally, as firmer balls.

I don't think they are. I think @1badbadger confirmed that, for center hits a firmer golf ball (within reason - I'm not counting those things they have a mini golf places, or limited flight balls) has a higher initial velocity.

1 hour ago, acerimusdux said:

But if anyone is gaining distance from lower compression balls, that's probably also due to differences in spin performance and not the idea that the ball needs to "compress" in order to achieve velocity. And it likely won't be much related to swing speed.

So, minimum swing speed for ProV1: 1mph.

Agree with all of that, yes.

Ball fitting depends quite a bit, too, on the shaft and head you have in your driver.

[MRR]

16 hours ago, iacas said:

While it can be helpful to think of deforming a golf ball as "storing" energy, the more a golf ball deforms the more energy it loses overall. That's why a flat tennis ball does not rocket off a racket (ha ha) as fast as a new, firm, properly inflated tennis ball. Or any other kind of inflated ball, like a basketball, racketball, soccer ball, etc.

Firmer balls (higher compression) deform less and lose less energy in deforming (energy is spent deforming and then "re-forming" the golf ball), and a firmer golf ball will, all else being equal, leave the clubface with a higher ball speed.

From my memory of physics, I think iacas is misinterpreting / misapplying 1badbadger's point.

True, a ball that is so weak that it deforms easily cannot rocket off of anything.  However, the point of compression is a bit different than that.

Let us assume two balls.  "A" is a very weak ball; it can be fully compressed with a swing speed of 50 mph.  "B" is similar to Pro-V; it can be compressed fully only with a swing speed of over 100 mph.

To iacas's point, a swing speed of 90 mph will fully compress ball "A", but ball "A" is so dead already that almost no power gets stored and the ball hardly moves.  Ball "B" does not fully compress, but there is still enough compression for it to launch a bit off the club.

To the left, 1badbadger's point is that a fully compressed ball "A" will fly much farther than a non-compressed ball "A", likewise for "B".  It's the ability to achieve full compression that allows ball "B" to be all that it can be.

 

In summary; to get the most power out of a ball, you need to fully compress it.  To find the right ball for you, you need to find the strongest* ball that you can fully compress.

 

*"strongest" is probably not the correct term, but I'm not an engineer.

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, MRR said:

From my memory of physics, I think iacas is misinterpreting / misapplying 1badbadger's point.

I don't think so. My information comes from my own background in physics, but also primarily from golf ball designers and engineers. I think even Dean Snell has confirmed what I've said, but I know for a fact that several engineers at Callaway, Titleist, and Bridgestone have done so.

22 minutes ago, MRR said:

True, a ball that is so weak that it deforms easily cannot rocket off of anything.  However, the point of compression is a bit different than that.

I'm not talking about a marshmallow golf ball: I'm talking about golf balls that we see and play.

22 minutes ago, MRR said:

Let us assume two balls.  "A" is a very weak ball; it can be fully compressed with a swing speed of 50 mph.  "B" is similar to Pro-V; it can be compressed fully only with a swing speed of over 100 mph.

Balls aren't really "compressed" at all. They're deformed. This isn't really a situation like rubber balls that are actually made denser… Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "fully" compressed anyway.

That's what people may not really be understanding. The golf ball is barely compressed. Golf balls are almost entirely deformed, with very, very little actual "compression" going on.

Even when we had balata balls with rubber wound cores, there was not as much "compression" as people seem to think (though I believe there was a bit more with wound balls than we have now).

22 minutes ago, MRR said:

To iacas's point, a swing speed of 90 mph will fully compress ball "A", but ball "A" is so dead already that almost no power gets stored and the ball hardly moves.  Ball "B" does not fully compress, but there is still enough compression for it to launch a bit off the club.

To the left, 1badbadger's point is that a fully compressed ball "A" will fly much farther than a non-compressed ball "A", likewise for "B".  It's the ability to achieve full compression that allows ball "B" to be all that it can be.

In summary; to get the most power out of a ball, you need to fully compress it.  To find the right ball for you, you need to find the strongest* ball that you can fully compress.

I don't think that's accurate, no.

I think that a firmer ball (within the realm of golf balls) will leave the clubface with a higher initial velocity than a lower compression ball on center/near-center contact.

Heck, think about the distance balls of yester-year: they were the firm Top-Flites, the firm Pinnacles, etc.

[MRR]

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

stuff

Eh, very well.  You are much more versed in golf than I. 

[Kalnoky]

I didn't read every single post, but I suspect the difference in distance comes from sidespin. If you hit a big banana with a firm ball then of course, a softer ball will go further because it will stay straighter. 

But I imagine if softer really meant longer than pros would be using Wilson Duo, which they do not. 

Maybe this has already been said herein, my apologies if that is so. 

 

[Lihu]

41 minutes ago, Kalnoky said:

I didn't read every single post, but I suspect the difference in distance comes from sidespin. If you hit a big banana with a firm ball then of course, a softer ball will go further because it will stay straighter. 

But I imagine if softer really meant longer than pros would be using Wilson Duo, which they do not. 

Maybe this has already been said herein, my apologies if that is so.

It would be great if "Flight Optimizer" could change the ball firmness as well.

Will a softer ball actually stay straighter?

[iacas]

58 minutes ago, Kalnoky said:

I didn't read every single post, but I suspect the difference in distance comes from sidespin. If you hit a big banana with a firm ball then of course, a softer ball will go further because it will stay straighter. 

Why would a softer ball "stay straighter?"

FWIW, there's not really any such thing as sidespin. The axis of the ball's spin is simply angled slightly.

[Kalnoky]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

Why would a softer ball "stay straighter?"

 

Reduced spin? 

[1badbadger]

2 hours ago, acerimusdux said:

 Really it depends on the COR of the materials used. A superball will bounce higher than a pool ball, for example. It is true that it's easier to make a firmer golf ball with a higher COR. But USGA limits on initial velocity prevent them from being made with as high a COR as they could be.

And so at this point in time, I think recent lower compression balls are achieving the same initial velocity limits, and ball speeds generally, as firmer balls. 

But if anyone is gaining distance from lower compression balls, that's probably also due to differences in spin performance and not the idea that the ball needs to "compress" in order to achieve velocity. And it likely won't be much related to swing speed.

So, minimum swing speed for ProV1: 1mph.

Your comment about players gaining distance due to reduced spin rates from the lower compression balls is true...that certainly has an effect and is one of the benefits of a lower compression ball...less curve and more distance.  I still believe the ball needs to be compressed with the driver and longer clubs though.  

Think about how the ball performs when hit with a short iron for example.  Only the cover and mantle layer are engaged, which creates a higher spinning shot.  For the ball to perform correctly off the driver, the ball needs to be compressed enough to activate the core.

40 minutes ago, Lihu said:

It would be great if "Flight Optimizer" could change the ball firmness as well.

Will a softer ball actually stay straighter?

 

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

Why would a softer ball "stay straighter?"

FWIW, there's not really any such thing as sidespin. The axis of the ball's spin is simply angled slightly.

 

23 minutes ago, Kalnoky said:

Reduced spin? 

Yes, usually a softer ball will not spin as much, which will reduce the amount of curve.  I have to say things like "usually" because in golf there are always exceptions to every rule, but yes, this is generally true.

[Lihu]

9 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

Think about how the ball performs when hit with a short iron for example.  Only the cover and mantle layer are engaged, which creates a higher spinning shot.  For the ball to perform correctly off the driver, the ball needs to be compressed enough to activate the core.

Isn't most of the spin due to higher lofts on the short iron or wedge? I would think the glancing blow the wedge makes will impart more spin than the lack of deformation onto the club face?

[acerimusdux]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Balls aren't really "compressed" at all. They're deformed. This isn't really a situation like rubber balls that are actually made denser… Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "fully" compressed anyway.

I guess maybe different people will have different understandings of what is meant by "compressed". But this is pretty close to what I imagined. Granted, this is illustrating a 150 mph impact, so a little harder than anyone can actually swing, so I guess exaggerated a bit for demonstration.

The core of the ball really is still essentially a "rubber-like" material. I think when "fully compressed", you are no longer getting any more resilience from the material, and thus no additional speed. A ball could simply split in two, for example, if "fully compressed". But even without that occurring you could be causing structural damage within the ball that could reduce it's future resilience. 

So I think "fully" compressed is a misnomer, and not what you actually want.

 

[1badbadger]

2 hours ago, Lihu said:

Isn't most of the spin due to higher lofts on the short iron or wedge? I would think the glancing blow the wedge makes will impart more spin than the lack of deformation onto the club face?

Yes, the loft of the club absolutley contributes to the amount of spin.  What I was trying to explain was on a full swing driver shot, the core affects the shot more than the cover, but with short irons and wedges the force of impact isn't nearly as high, so the cover influences the performance the most, and the core the least.  Not all of the layers of a ball are used equally on every shot...long clubs make the core do the work, short clubs make the cover do the work.

[acerimusdux]

2 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

Think about how the ball performs when hit with a short iron for example.  Only the cover and mantle layer are engaged, which creates a higher spinning shot.  For the ball to perform correctly off the driver, the ball needs to be compressed enough to activate the core.

Yes, but I think that is impacting mainly spin, not distance. At least in modern balls.

But I do think different materials can perform differently at different speeds. I used to make fun of people using the "drop test", by saying is was only relevant if you had a 13 mph swing speed. But if one degree of hardness or compression was always better, regardless of speed, then the drop test might have worked!

I think it used to be true though, that hard covered distance balls went farther than softer covered performance balls. Today I think "distance" ball is a misnomer for those balls, which really aren't going any farther.

I think it also used to be true that higher compression cored balls gave more distance at higher swing speeds, which were in danger of "overcompressing" softer cored balls. But lower compression balls performed better for lower swing speeds, which didn't compress the firmer balls enough to achieve sufficient COR.

But I think improvements in materials and design have made those things mostly irrelevant in modern balls, apart from some extremes. A ball like the ProV1 is really a mid-compression ball today, which will give near to the maximum ball speed attainable for most plausible real world swing speeds.

This is written by a guy from Wilson, who was obviously promoting the Duo, but I think it's basically correct. Modern balls mostly have higher COR at lower swing speeds, and are able to do so across a range of compressions. So compression becomes more about feel, spin, trajectory.

Edited January 24, 2017 by acerimusdux

[Lihu]

17 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

Yes, the loft of the club absolutley contributes to the amount of spin.  What I was trying to explain was on a full swing driver shot, the core affects the shot more than the cover, but with short irons and wedges the force of impact isn't nearly as high, so the cover influences the performance the most, and the core the least.  Not all of the layers of a ball are used equally on every shot...long clubs make the core do the work, short clubs make the cover do the work.

Makes sense. . .

So, if I understand you correctly, you want to optimize the deformation of the ball? Not too much and not too little which is why ball fitting is important?

However, my current game is so bad in general that I think the extra 4 yards I might gain wouldn't amount to more than a fraction of a stroke? At least that's how I "feel" about it? So, I'm sticking to my Pro-V1s at this point.

[1badbadger]

33 minutes ago, acerimusdux said:

I guess maybe different people will have different understandings of what is meant by "compressed". But this is pretty close to what I imagined. Granted, this is illustrating a 150 mph impact, so a little harder than anyone can actually swing, so I guess exaggerated a bit for demonstration.

The core of the ball really is still essentially a "rubber-like" material. I think when "fully compressed", you are no longer getting any more resilience from the material, and thus no additional speed. A ball could simply split in two, for example, if "fully compressed". But even without that occurring you could be causing structural damage within the ball that could reduce it's future resilience. 

So I think "fully" compressed is a misnomer, and not what you actually want.

 

What I meant by "fully compressing the ball" is that at impact as the ball is being deformed or flattened, it will reach it's peak of deformation, at which point it will seek to restore itself to it's original shape. This power of restitution is what makes the ball burst off the face.  If the ball is only partially deformed, there will be a loss in performance.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, acerimusdux said:

I guess maybe different people will have different understandings of what is meant by "compressed". But this is pretty close to what I imagined. Granted, this is illustrating a 150 mph impact, so a little harder than anyone can actually swing, so I guess exaggerated a bit for demonstration.

FWIW I'm using the actual definition of the word: to make the material compress, or become denser. It doesn't really happen much in a golf ball. Minimally. What you can't see from that view is the 3D look at the golf ball - the volume of the golf ball is going to be about the same at every stage of that impact collision.

The ball deforms a great amount. It doesn't compress much.

The article by the Wilson guy you cited later on said as much, too: "Compression is a measurement of the deformation of the golf ball under a static load." "Compression" is thus a misnomer: balls aren't actually "compressed" much at all.

1 hour ago, acerimusdux said:

The core of the ball really is still essentially a "rubber-like" material.

The modern core is more like a plastic than a rubber. It's a rubber in the sense that it's a plastic that can deform and return to shape without cracking and breaking into pieces, but it's not a rubber like a super bouncy ball or something.

1 hour ago, acerimusdux said:

I think when "fully compressed", you are no longer getting any more resilience from the material, and thus no additional speed. A ball could simply split in two, for example, if "fully compressed". But even without that occurring you could be causing structural damage within the ball that could reduce it's future resilience. 

I don't think there's really any such thing as "fully compressed."

1 hour ago, acerimusdux said:

But I do think different materials can perform differently at different speeds. I used to make fun of people using the "drop test", by saying is was only relevant if you had a 13 mph swing speed. But if one degree of hardness or compression was always better, regardless of speed, then the drop test might have worked!

There's more to a proper fitting than just ball speed. And let's all remember a ball's "compression" is not on a 0-100 scale: the scale goes below 0 and well above 100 (a 100 compression ball is still deformed).

1 hour ago, acerimusdux said:

I think it also used to be true that higher compression cored balls gave more distance at higher swing speeds, which were in danger of "overcompressing" softer cored balls. But lower compression balls performed better for lower swing speeds, which didn't compress the firmer balls enough to achieve sufficient COR.

I don't think there's really any such thing as "overcompressing" a golf ball. Long drive guys can still hit a low compression golf ball.

1 hour ago, acerimusdux said:

This is written by a guy from Wilson, who was obviously promoting the Duo, but I think it's basically correct. Modern balls mostly have higher COR at lower swing speeds, and are able to do so across a range of compressions. So compression becomes more about feel, spin, trajectory.

To put an end to it, because it was never my intent to argue about what amounts to the very small point that "firmer = faster," I agree that the modern golf ball is pretty highly engineered and has a lot more to do with feel than performance. The performance in that one chart shows how little the difference is across a really wide range of swing speeds:

The differences there are minimal.

Also, Titleist says (http://www.titleist.com/golf-ball-fitting):

Quote

THE ROLE OF COMPRESSION

Some golfers tell us they don’t compress the ball enough to play a Pro V1 or Pro V1x. This simply isn’t true. Compression is solely a test of the relative softness of a golf ball, and a golfer that has a “feel” preference for a softer ball may prefer a lower compression ball. High speed photography shows that the difference in ball compression at widely varied swing speeds is virtually indistinguishable.

High swing speed

Low swing speed

The bold/red text is of my own doing.

1 hour ago, acerimusdux said:

But I think improvements in materials and design have made those things mostly irrelevant in modern balls, apart from some extremes. A ball like the ProV1 is really a mid-compression ball today, which will give near to the maximum ball speed attainable for most plausible real world swing speeds.

Yeah, again, I agree with the bold there.

50 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

What I meant by "fully compressing the ball" is that at impact as the ball is being deformed or flattened, it will reach it's peak of deformation, at which point it will seek to restore itself to it's original shape. This power of restitution is what makes the ball burst off the face.  If the ball is only partially deformed, there will be a loss in performance.

I still don't think that's accurate if we are talking about ball speed. The loss of performance may be from other things, but the ball speed will generally be fairly linear. The chart from the Wilson article backs that up a bit - it's fairly linear.

---

Executive summary of the way I understand things right now: compression is largely a matter of feel, and even at 110 MPH or 80 MPH swing speeds, you can find balls that fit your game which are high compression or low compression, particularly if you have more layers with different compression ratings.

Find a ball that you like the feel of and make sure the performance is inline with what's theoretically possible as a maximum.

The information I have about "firmer = faster" is five or six years old at this point, but I don't know that ball technology has changed to the point where that's untrue now… but I'm open to the idea that we're talking about negligible differences here.

[No Mulligans]

My experience has been that soft vs. firm (say an E6 vs. a ProV1, both of which I often play), ... the increased "straightness" of the softer ball is pretty negligible.  I've hit plenty of banana slices with both the E6 and the ProV1.  To make either of them go pretty straight, I have to hit the ball well... I've hit plenty of straight balls with the E6 and the ProV1s.  I'm thinking the "helps you hit it straighter" marketing is a bit overblown.  Are there any robo-swing analysis to this point?