• Announcements

    • iacas

      Introducing TST "Clubs!"   08/28/2017

      No, we're not getting into the equipment business, but we do have "clubs" here on TST now. Groups. Check them out here:
Sign in to follow this  
busapp

Are many mint condition used golf balls water balls that are water logged, with water inside

0  

  1. 1. would you use a mint condition used Pro V1 in your next club tournament

    • I would be afraid that the ball I use would be water logged or damaged in some way
      1
    • The cost of a new ball is not so great considering the overall cost of playing golf, so why bother with used balls.
      1
    • I don't lose enough balls to justify purchasing used balls. My new ball lasts three or four rounds, and that is enough to justify the cost.
      1


Recommended Posts

busapp    1

Suppose you purchase 36 mint condition used Titleist Pro V1 balls from GolfBallNut or similar quality purveyors.  The balls look as if new.  Most perform that way.  These balls are probably one hit wonders which landed in the water.  So, what happens when the ball is under water for some period of time, from one day to one week.  Is the cover permeable to water?  Will the water soak into the ball, causing the bounce characteristics to be different.  Look the same, but perform different?  Basically, does the cover leak water.  Most honest pro shop personnel will say that the used balls perform like the new balls for the vast majority of golfers.  Do you agree?  If so, why not buy the used balls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Dave40    2

Used golf balls are usually fine.  Just stay away from the ones that say "refurbished".  These look better because they are repainted.  I don't trust a golf ball that has been modified.

On another note, I have found that Titleist PV1s seem to be the most susceptible to water damage.  Many times I can see the paint bubbling within the dimples.  I haven't seen this with other brands, so it must be the paint or cover formulation that Titleist uses.  Luckily, most PV1s in that condition do not make it into boxes of recycled balls.  The recycled PV1s seem to work just fine, but it does make me wonder about their water resistant qualities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernest Jones    994

?

Your "poll" only really offers one choice but with three different reasons for voting NO.

Anywho...FWIW, I play recycled Dt Solos. I don't even bother with mint, I drop down to AAA which is one step down from mint. Costs me around .50 a ball. No issues, they perform great, although that may have more to do with my Warrior clubs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

tiger187126    13

i've never had a used ball show signs of being internally compromised, but they all return from whence they came at some point so i'm not too worried.

the only difference is the cover color is definitely darker on most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know how today's water hazard balls perform, but I can remember a Golf Digest study from years ago (when the only choices were balata or surlyn covers). After immersed in water for about 7 days, the balls lost about 10 yards (more so with the balata than the surlyn). The reason was slight water uptake, making the ball heavier and flying shorter. This is one reason why manufacturers hate reclaimed pond balls - they do not meet the performance of new balls, and you may be judging them based on your experience with them. Another reason is that some refurbishers spray a shiny coating on the ball to make it look "new". This fills in the dimples and messes with the aerodynamics. This is probably true today as it was years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rkim291968    225
Originally Posted by Archie Bunker

Don't know how today's water hazard balls perform, but I can remember a Golf Digest study from years ago (when the only choices were balata or surlyn covers). After immersed in water for about 7 days, the balls lost about 10 yards (more so with the balata than the surlyn). The reason was slight water uptake, making the ball heavier and flying shorter. This is one reason why manufacturers hate reclaimed pond balls - they do not meet the performance of new balls, and you may be judging them based on your experience with them. Another reason is that some refurbishers spray a shiny coating on the ball to make it look "new". This fills in the dimples and messes with the aerodynamics. This is probably true today as it was years ago.


I read another study (done by used ball seller - so not very credible) that claimed only a few yards loss on drives.   Either way, there is a yardage loss.   I'd think the loss is more severe if ball is scratched, making it easier for water to sip in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Hardballs    41
I also read an article, where the hosts allegedly did a means test with the outcome showing that there was very little difference in balls submerged in water for 1hr, 1day, 1wk, or 1 month, Yet after 6 months the yardage loss could be 10 or more, Concluding the the longer the ball is wet, the worse effect it takes, which makes perfect sense, but anyway, I buy mint/pearl, I used to buy new, it's nice to hit a brand new ball out the box, but they don't last any longer and I no longer care to pay extra for that privilege!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernest Jones    994

FWIW here is what Knetgolf publishes on their site with regards to recycled ball performance based on comparison between 120 new balls vs 120 of each of their grades of used balls.

Test Results Highlights: Overall Evaluation:
pic Insignificant Total Carry Difference “Our test data proves new balls and Knetgolf.com pre-owned balls are basically interchangeable,” says Tony Nelson, President of AGS. “I don’t see how the average golfer would notice a difference – except for the price.”

"As for the difference between recycled and refinished balls, there is certainly no statistically significant difference in performance that any golfer I know would be able to detect." Tony added, " This is a certainly a win for all golfers."
pic Insignificant Spin Rate Difference
pic Insignificant Launch Angle Difference
pic Minimal Descent Angle Difference
pic Insignificant Apex Height Difference
pic Insignificant Float Time Difference
Test Parameters:
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

meenman    66
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

FWIW here is what Knetgolf publishes on their site with regards to recycled ball performance based on comparison between 120 new balls vs 120 of each of their grades of used balls.

If it is on the internet, it must be true!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Jeremie Boop    286

The problem is losing a few yards on a drive doesn't hurt, but losing 4 yards on an approach shot can be very detrimental depending on where the pin is and if there is trouble short of the green. Of course this will only be an issue if switching between grades of balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Several years ago, TaylorMade tried selling balls packaged in airtight sleeves, claiming that balls packaged in normal sleeves lost distance over time. True or not, that marketing pitch didn't catch on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernest Jones    994
Originally Posted by Archie Bunker

Several years ago, TaylorMade tried selling balls packaged in airtight sleeves, claiming that balls packaged in normal sleeves lost distance over time. True or not, that marketing pitch didn't catch on.

Like tennis balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

dsc123    133
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

Good stuff!

lostgolfballs.com says recycled are better than refinished.  Might have to rethink that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

RickK    27

I find a lot of golf balls.  I have several 5 gallon buckets full of balls I will never play but my son will.  I generally take the Pentas and the ProV1s and throw them into a small bucket with water and bleach for a day or so to clean them.  The "refurbished" balls that have been painted...the paint will fuzz up on them and come off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretzel    397
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

FWIW here is what Knetgolf publishes on their site with regards to recycled ball performance based on comparison between 120 new balls vs 120 of each of their grades of used balls.

I'm just going to point out that a 5 yard difference is almost definitely a statistical significance between the golf balls unless the variance in distance with the balls is huge. Unless the standard deviation between golf ball carry distance from ball to ball is 2.5 yards (2 deviations is a 95% confidence interval), then you can be 95% confident that there IS a statistical significance. With a sample size that large, it's hard for a difference like that to not be significant without scarily large variation in distances from individual golf balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Ernest Jones    994
I'm just going to point out that a 5 yard difference is almost definitely a statistical significance between the golf balls unless the variance in distance with the balls is huge. Unless the standard deviation between golf ball carry distance from ball to ball is 2.5 yards (2 deviations is a 95% confidence interval), then you can be 95% confident that there IS a statistical significance. With a sample size that large, it's hard for a difference like that to not be significant without scarily large variation in distances from individual golf balls.

I'm not sure I follow your post 100% (I'm not very mathy :-P) so feel free to correct me if I'm missing the point but here is how I see things: If I hit 100 brand new DT Solos with a 5 iron and average 185 yards at $2 a ball and then hit 100 recycled, top grade DT Solos and average 180 yards at $.80 a ball while still receiving the full benefit of the ball's feel and greenside performance I'm going with the $.80 every time! This is especially true for me because if I were to hit 100 5 irons there would likely be a fair sized dispersion in distance as a high handicapper. If/when I become more consistent and lower my cap I will probably reassess the amount of money I invest in my golf ball because I will be more likely to benefit from the superior flight characteristics of a mint ball. I am certainly not disparaging anyone's choice over what ball they play, if I could afford to play the brand new version of my ball of choice without it negatively impacting other aspects of my life I certainly would. Sadly I must make due with the $.80, 5 yard shorter version (for now) Of course I may have completely misunderstood the point of your post and/or the statistics* in which case...never mind. *which may be suspect in the first place as they are provided by the seller! :-0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Pretzel    397

Sorry, I meant that it is a significant difference statistically speaking. Basically all that means is that there is definitely a difference, not that the difference will change your golf game drastically.

I didn't really make that clear I feel in my post. In other words, the difference is significant (from a statistical point of view), but not meaningful to someone as a player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2017 TST Partners

    Talamore Golf Resort
    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Mission Belt
    Snell Golf
    Frogger Golf
    PitchFix USA
  • Posts

    • Not sure if we disagree on any point, was just agreeing it becomes more mental as you get better.  I've played a lot of sports in my life, tennis seriously through high school and competed d1 in college (for those that will accept this as I was a runner).  And even in running, it's hard for me to say that mental game was not of paramount importance when in competition. Agree that if you didn't get your body to the physical state (including muscle memory) to compete, you were already out... but I've personally witnessed (myself, opponents, teammates) so many fails/losses due to the mental game it's hard for me to completely discount it w/ a clear conscience.  And I'm not just talking any-given-sunday... but over seasons as well.
    • You guys are lucky.  I actually enjoy practicing.  Chipping and Putting games etc.  I don't mind hitting the same club over and over and workin on things.  I just have ZERO time now to practice.. lol  My time is now hitting into my net for 20 minutes or so or chipping balls into a hula hoop working on distance control.  Maybe once a week away from the house
    • To the OP.... I'm just as you are, kinda of torn between yes they should change it & no keep it the same..but I say keep it the way it is. My reason is the 2nd part of your answer in your original question, for me it wouldn't be exciting to see the 29th or 30th ranked guy win & thus be rewarded for 1 great weekend & that being the last in the Tour Championship, when it's a great possibility he didn't even win a tournament all season. I can live with it being the way it is, after all nothing in life is perfect so all we can do is go with what makes it the closest to the best, and it is imho.
    • John Daly never won the Masters. And he was having problems well before he won the PGA… or the British Open. Golf is almost entirely physical. You have to be world-class physically before your mental game can even matter. If you're not world class physically, you'll never even GET to the PGA Tour. And you need to be a 6.5-index physically before you shoot like a 6.5 index. If you blow up in tournaments, yeah, you've got some mental work to do… but you're still a 6.5 index because of how you swing and hit the ball and putt and chip, etc. Between peers, the mental game is a sliver of a separator. But sometimes at the highest level that's all it takes. Other times, you can be so good physically (see also Dustin Johnson) that you can be a stooge and still win.
    • I admit, it's mostly a memory from me, but I'll ask my Dad his name to google him.  But the thought still remains, aren't there a lot of guys that can routinely throw up mid sixties in tournament conditions on varied courses, but still can't ever get anything going on the Web.com? Maybe the guy I am recalling was a head case, but my guess would have been there's a crapload of these same head cases that are trying to qualify for either the web.com or pga. Is John Daly's success and problems physical or mental?  I'm thinking particularly after he won the masters.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. CoachB25
      CoachB25
      (60 years old)
    2. Fsgolfer
      Fsgolfer
      (61 years old)
    3. Zach
      Zach
      (27 years old)
  • Get Great Gear with Amazon