Golf Ball Head to Head Comparisons

[Ernest Jones]

Due to budget constraints (I'm currently in high school), I have decided upon a final list of golf balls that I will attempt to obtain for testing purposes, just because I can't test them all as much as I wish I could afford it. - 2013 ProV1 and ProV1x - 2015 ProV1 and ProV1x - Nike RZN Black and Platinum - Bridgestone B330 and B330-S - Srixon Z-Star - Callaway Chrome Soft - Callaway SR3 (This one is a maybe, I haven't seen them anywhere near me) Once I obtain the golf balls and ensure that the GC2 monitor is available, I will write up my intended methods for review to see if anyone has modifications or tweaks they would like to see to ensure a fair comparison.

Ask for donations from members of the forum. Seems like there's a fair amount of interest in your project.

[Pretzel]

I would have thought that your AP stats course would have taught you that 5 swings per ball doesn't provide enough data to be statistically relevant. Especially given the somewhat inconsistent nature of an amateur's (even a relatively skilled amateur) swing.

Should be fun to look at though. But I don't think that I'd make a decision on which ball to play based on the info.

While I realize that 5 swings per ball is less than ideal, it is my bare minimum goal for data collection. The problem becomes time on the simulator with the number of golf balls I would like to test. If there is time, I will hit each ball as many times as I can fit in, but that's the reason for the constraint. I figure that a little data is better than no data, and it's nice to have a direct comparison with numbers.

One of the options I am considering is only testing driver swings on the GC2 and then just doing tests on a practice range for the wedge shots. The one thing I don't like about that is it would be hard to share the data since the wedge data would be entirely subjective instead of quantitative. It would help me significantly, but it wouldn't be too useful to anyone who is reading it. It would, however, allow for more accurate data collection from the GC2 and more substantial analysis afterwords from the perspective of tee shots.

[Shorty]

While a contradictory viewpoint is appreciated, my previous testing had showed differences in the balls to the point that the numbers could identify the ball that was hit on the shot.

Nonsense.

[boogielicious]

I would have thought that your AP stats course would have taught you that 5 swings per ball doesn't provide enough data to be statistically relevant. Especially given the somewhat inconsistent nature of an amateur's (even a relatively skilled amateur) swing.

Should be fun to look at though. But I don't think that I'd make a decision on which ball to play based on the info.

That is not necessarily true.  It depends on the variation he sees within the test.  If he properly randomizes the test, as in doing a designed experiment, the data can possibly show significance at a particular confidence level.  More shots would be better, of course, and allow a higher confidence level.

[David in FL]

That is not necessarily true.  It depends on the variation he sees within the test.  If he properly randomizes the test, as in doing a designed experiment, the data can possibly show significance at a particular confidence level.  More shots would be better, of course, and allow a higher confidence level.

Therein lies the issue.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

That is not necessarily true.  It depends on the variation he sees within the test.  If he properly randomizes the test, as in doing a designed experiment, the data can possibly show significance at a particular confidence level.  More shots would be better, of course, and allow a higher confidence level.

Therein lies the issue.

But you don't necessarily needs hundreds either.  In my Titleist 915D2 review, I had three shafts and three heads.  Each head shaft combination was hit 15 times, split into three different 5 hit groups randomized for the particular session.  Each session, I only hit one shaft/head combination.  I dropped obvious miss hits.  The whole study was over three sessions to block fatigue.  Spin, carry and distance results were all significant to a 95% confidence level.  The variation really determines significance.  The sample size helps when the variation is small.

So @Pretzel could do a similar study and still get statistically significant results if the spin variation was large.  He could hit each ball 3 times, one hit at a time, and just randomize the order of the balls.  He has 11 balls, 3 hits, for 33 total swings.  That is easily randomized.  He could then replicate it on another day, with a different random order.  He could also have someone place the ball on the tee, logo down to blind the study.

What he may find is the spin could be significantly different between the highest and lowest results, but not the intermediate spin results.

[Pretzel]

Nonsense.

Regardless of your opinion on the matter, my experiment from two years ago was able to differentiate between the "premium" balls, with one being significantly better than the others (in terms of distance of the tee) at the 95% confidence level, or about 3 standard deviations. Opinion doesn't matter much when the data contradicts it, Shorty. As Boogielicious suggested, I was able to find that the highest and lowest performing balls were significant at the 95% confidence level, while the balls in the middle were statistically indistinguishable from each other. As a note, for those who are interested, the test will not be conducted until May at the earliest. I have school and robotics until that point, which takes up my days and evenings until they're both compete.

[iacas]

Nonsense.

It's not nonsense. Sometimes you can rule something out quickly, or see big changes. I might only need to hit a wedge shot three times with a wedge or a ball to know that I don't like that wedge or ball or whatever and to rule it out.

[Shorty]

It's not nonsense. Sometimes you can rule something out quickly, or see big changes. I might only need to hit a wedge shot three times with a wedge or a ball to know that I don't like that wedge or ball or whatever and to rule it out.

There is a huge difference between hitting short shots to a target and comparing spin, feel off the club  and roll out.

Anyone who can't tell the difference between a ProV1 and a lower tier Titleist or similar has little feel.

But to say you can test a dozen balls and work out all of their characteristics in "testing" in ad hoc conditions is not sensible.

I would suggest a that a player works out if they can benefit from the greenside playability of a ball and then work backwards.

Someone here recently noted that they could "Only detect minimal differences" in the performance of a Pro V1 after a few rounds. That is just plain BS.

Did he think it went 183 with a 6 iron and not 184?