Is Golf Ball Fitting Beneficial For The Average Player?

[1badbadger]

In another thread, an interesting question was brought up... does the average golfer produce consistent enough swings to really do a fairly quick ball test?

For those that haven't read any of my previous posts, I have been in the golf business for over 18 years.  Almost 10 of those were spent as an equipment tech for Bridgestone Golf. I am no longer employed by B-stone, so I'm not promoting them and am not receiving compensation from them.  This information is based on the knowledge and experience I have gathered from a hands-on view point over many years.  

There are different thoughts and opinions on the concept of ball fitting and which method is the best to determine the correct model.  Some believe starting at the green and working backwards is the most effective way and others start with the driver and work towards the green, just like the game is played.  Since the question that triggered this post was based off of a video that was demonstrating the idea that all golf ball perform almost the same off the driver, we will look at fittings that are based off of the driver.

Let's discuss very quickly the reason for using the driver when fitting for golf balls instead of starting at the green with a wedge.  Because the driver is the longest club in the bag with the least amount of loft, it reveals a player's tendencies and the differences in golf ball construction.  If a player tends to launch the ball too low or has excessive backspin for example, the driver lets you know.  When starting with a wedge, the overall performance of the ball can be masked by the effect of loft and backspin.  What do I mean by that?  Because a wedge is a shorter club with a lot of loft, it's very easy to hit straight (when was the last time you sliced a wedge shot?) and if the ball flight is high with a lot of spin...well, that's what you'd expect to see.  But it's hard to tell if it's spinning too much (or maybe not enough).

To be clear, this doesn't mean it's only fitting for the driver, or this isn't a good method because the ball needs to work on all shots and the majority of all shots are played within 100 yds of the green. I realize there are a lot of players who use Titleist balls...they are the number one selling ball, so there are a lot of loyal customers out there, and people buy into what they say. But I'd like everyone to keep an open mind and realize what I'm saying is true and it makes sense.  I don't have a dog in this fight, but that doesn't mean I won't tell you if something is b.s. Claiming that using a driver for fitting only takes distance into account, or that the driver is only used 14 times but the ball needs to work on all shots is like saying if you start at the green with a wedge like Titleist recommends, you'll be playing a ball that only works on wedge shots.  How is it that starting with a wedge means the ball will work with all clubs for all kinds of shots, but starting with a driver means that ball will only work with the driver?

Now that we know there is a logical reason to use a driver for initial ball fitting, can a mid to high handicapper who typically has an inconsistent swing produce meaningful data by hitting 3 or 4 shots to determine the best ball for them?  In all honesty, players who struggle with making contact with the ball, who top the ball or swing under it and pop it up for example will not create usable numbers. A good tech will still be able to consult with you and make a suggestion, but it won't be based off of launch monitor results. That's ok...we were all beginners at one point, but for the launch monitor to produce data we need usable shots.

So what about players who make contact but their shots are inconsistent?  This is pretty normal.  The majority of players are mid to high handicappers, and their swings will be inconsistent...some more than others.  Even if your swing is inconsistent, one thing all players have is tendencies.  It doesn't matter if you're a Tour player or a 36 handicapper, every player has certain tendencies.  So even if you don't hit every shot exactly the same, your tendencies will be noticeable.  For example, if a player with a 100 mph swing hits 3 shots with spin rates of 3324 rpms, 2966 rpms and 3519 rpms, yes,those are all different, but they have one thing in common...they are all too high. This player has a tendency to spin the ball too much, so we know a move to a lower spinning model is needed.  If you're wondering what would happen if the numbers were something like 3324, 1508, 3672 where 2 shots are way too high and one was way too low...I would suspect the 2nd shot was a mishit and have the player hit another one.  Mishits will happen from time to time and should be eliminated as they will just skew the results.

So I absolutely do feel that ball fitting is beneficial for all players.  I welcome comments and questions that are constructive and or intriguing and will be glad to answer or explain thoughts or  clear up any confusion.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

How is it that starting with a wedge means the ball will work with all clubs for all kinds of shots, but starting with a driver means that ball will only work with the driver?

I think the very obvious difference is that Titleist (and others) tell you to start near the green, eliminating balls that you don't like, and then work your way back, while the Bridgestone fitting ONLY uses the driver - it doesn't advance from there.

I know a lot of golfers who would benefit from playing a different ball, but they really like the spin and performance of the ball off their shorter shots, so they stick with that model.

My question was specific to a quick ball fitting, too. If you fit several people per hour, that means that you were taking only a few swings at each ball. Yeah, you can sometimes get an idea… but that's a pretty small sample size.

In the example you cited in the other thread, I asked specifically about whether the ball alone could account for 2° launch angle difference. You said no, which means their swing accounted for 1-1.5° of the difference. If their swing is that inconsistent, and the 2° was one of the main differences… then I'm not sure how beneficial the quick ball fittings are.

@mvmac went through one at the PGA Show. He hit fewer than ten golf balls.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that even a quick ball fitting is more beneficial than none, but I think I'd put the bar to where it's a good use of time a bit higher, and my bar would also include different types of shots. Driver distance and iron performance is most important, but the short game control and feel are still relevant, IMO.

[Missouri Swede]

I've got a couple of questions about the methodology.  I'm a high handicapper, and I've never been fitted for a ball.  Just curious about it.  

2 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

Because the driver is the longest club in the bag with the least amount of loft, it reveals a player's tendencies and the differences in golf ball construction.  If a player tends to launch the ball too low or has excessive backspin for example, the driver lets you know.

But with the differences in ball location and strike with a driver vs irons  (since most of us attempt to hit up with the driver and down with the irons), can those data and tendencies be correlated with iron data?

2 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

For example, if a player with a 100 mph swing hits 3 shots with spin rates of 3324 rpms, 2966 rpms and 3519 rpms, yes,those are all different, but they have one thing in common...they are all too high. This player has a tendency to spin the ball too much, so we know a move to a lower spinning model is needed.

Wouldn't it rather indicate a problem with the driver fitting/adjustment?  In other words, can this be a way to get a quicker/cheaper fix (at least in this example) than "you're playing the wrong driver/shaft combination for your swing, but you can change the ball to accommodate it until you change/adjust the driver"?

Following up from that, when someone changes their driver, should they get refitted for the ball, too?

Thanks for posting and your willingness to share from your experience.

[Patch]

I am of the opinion, that any kind of fitting is beneficial to any level of golfer. I also believe the lower the golfer's handicap, the more beneficial the fitting. 

For the higher hdcpr, a fitting can be a good starting point in their search for their better game. We all started some where in our games. A little help during that journey is usually a good thing. 

[Denny Bang Bang]

From my perspective, all shots count, so it would be important to test balls in all different areas of the game.  For me personally, I'm most interested in how the ball performs from about 150 and in, because that is where I'm confident and my game is solid.  Off the tee, my bad shots are typically a result of a poor swing, and there's not much the right ball can do to help (although on occasion it can, depends how poor the swing).

 I think higher handicap players typically have several problem areas in their game, and a ball potentially won't make a bit of difference.  If they were to be fit for a ball, and only had a dozen shots, it seems they should start with a ball to fit the best part(s)/most consistent part(s) of their game at that point in time.  As they continue to improve, then expand testing balls to other areas of their game.

[1badbadger]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

I think the very obvious difference is that Titleist (and others) tell you to start near the green, eliminating balls that you don't like, and then work your way back, while the Bridgestone fitting ONLY uses the driver - it doesn't advance from there.

I know a lot of golfers who would benefit from playing a different ball, but they really like the spin and performance of the ball off their shorter shots, so they stick with that model.

My question was specific to a quick ball fitting, too. If you fit several people per hour, that means that you were taking only a few swings at each ball. Yeah, you can sometimes get an idea… but that's a pretty small sample size.

In the example you cited in the other thread, I asked specifically about whether the ball alone could account for 2° launch angle difference. You said no, which means their swing accounted for 1-1.5° of the difference. If their swing is that inconsistent, and the 2° was one of the main differences… then I'm not sure how beneficial the quick ball fittings are.

@mvmac went through one at the PGA Show. He hit fewer than ten golf balls.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that even a quick ball fitting is more beneficial than none, but I think I'd put the bar to where it's a good use of time a bit higher, and my bar would also include different types of shots. Driver distance and iron performance is most important, but the short game control and feel are still relevant, IMO.

Let me address the things you mentioned and clarify a little bit, because I think there is some misconceptions on some of the aspects.

There is perception that the Titleist fitting covers everything and the Bridgestone only addresses the driver.  One of the biggest issues I have with the Titleist method is it's not a real golf ball fitting.  They give you a Pro V1 2-ball pack and a Pro V1x 2-ball pack and basically tell you to hit some shots and see which one you like best. So regardless of swing speed, handicap, launch numbers or anything else, they are saying you can pick this ball or that ball.  The other models in Titleist's line are not included and competitor models are not included.  I know for a fact that there are many players who don't fit into either of those models, but Titleist doesn't offer other options or comparisons.  They claim the Pro V1 and Pro V1x have the best distance, best short game spin, best flight characteristics, softest feel and great durability.  I hate to tell everyone, but there is no such thing as a perfect golf ball.  The laws of physics and aerodynamics apply to Titleist just like everyone else.  A ball that is designed for high spin will not be as long as a lower spinning model and will tend to curve more, and a ball designed for distance will not have the same type of performance on approach shots and around the green.

Titleist also doesn't offer any data that shows how those models stack-up for players, or how they perform compared to their ideal numbers.  Sure, people love the spin that they get around the green, but do they need that much spin?  Is all that spin hurting them in other areas?  High spin actually gets a lot of players in trouble and costs them more strokes than it saves them.  Similar to the Titleist method that has players go through the process on their own, after a Bridgestone tech works with a player and their driver and shows them the data, a 2-ball pack is given to the player to continue their testing on the course with irons and short game. 

As far as the number of shots on the launch monitor is concerned, you are correct...typically 3 or 4 shots with each ball is recorded.  It's not a lot, but it's 6-8 more shots over a launch monitor than a Titleist fitting. Obviously it would be great to do more, but a fitting could easily stretch to an hour per player, so a typical 4-5 hour event we could only help a handful of players.  A normal fitting takes about 15 min, so that is 16-20 players per event.  At that number, the cost of each fitting was right around $40/player.  If an hour was spent with each player, it would cost almost $200/player which isn't cost effective.

On the launch angle issue, what I said was there are many things that can affect the launch, including the ball.  I didn't say 2* wasn't possible and I didn't say in the example I posted that only 1/2* could be attributed to the ball.  Honestly, I can't say how much of that 2* is related to moving to a different model...even if other variables like tee height, ball position were removed, the difference in loft will vary from player-to-player due to different swing speeds, swing paths, angle of attack etc which is unique to everyone.  Plus depending on what model is used first and which model is recommended could have a smaller or larger affect than other combinations.  You could probably make the same case for every category if you wanted though, right?  You could say how much of the difference in spin was caused by the ball change and how much was the result of some other variable?  Spin is more important than the launch angle, so even if the l.a. stayed the same, the drop in spin would have made a nice difference by itself.  But we know the player was launching the ball too low with too much spin, a lower spinning/higher launching ball was recommended and the results were a more efficient trajectory and an increase in performance.

I believe the key is to be able to show a player in black and white what their launch conditions are with their current ball and how it compares to their ideal numbers.  If you can't show a player the areas that need improvement, then how can you confidently recommend the best ball for them?  The truth is, most people are playing the wrong ball, so it's not that hard to make an improvement, and honestly there are probably a handful of different makes/models that would be better.  

 

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, 1badbadger said:

There is perception that the Titleist fitting

To be clear, I have never talked about "the Titleist fitting." I don't know what they do to fit players. I'm simply talking about their recommendation to start at the green and work backward, but ultimately to consider all the shots you play in a round of golf, not just ones with the driver.

I'm not talking about "here's two balls, try them out." I'm talking about the idea of "here are 30 kinds of golf ball. I eliminated a few because they felt horrible off my putter. I eliminated a few more for poor performance around the green. I eliminated some more for poor spin or flight with my irons. Of the six that I had left, these two performed well with my driver, so one of them is a good fit.

If they have a super official "ball fitting" process, I wasn't talking about that, nor was I talking about a "here is a Pro V1 and a Pro V1x… hit some shots and pick one."

So… I wish you hadn't devoted that much attention to the "Titleist method" in your post when that's not at all what I was asking.

My point was… I'm skeptical that the Bridgestone method (only hitting a few balls, not doing much to account for consistent tee heights, ball position, players getting "warmed up" during the process, etc., only using the driver and disregarding the rest of the shots) is a great method, either.

[1badbadger]

3 hours ago, Missouri Swede said:

I've got a couple of questions about the methodology.  I'm a high handicapper, and I've never been fitted for a ball.  Just curious about it.  

But with the differences in ball location and strike with a driver vs irons  (since most of us attempt to hit up with the driver and down with the irons), can those data and tendencies be correlated with iron data?

Wouldn't it rather indicate a problem with the driver fitting/adjustment?  In other words, can this be a way to get a quicker/cheaper fix (at least in this example) than "you're playing the wrong driver/shaft combination for your swing, but you can change the ball to accommodate it until you change/adjust the driver"?

Following up from that, when someone changes their driver, should they get refitted for the ball, too?

Thanks for posting and your willingness to share from your experience.

Thanks for your questions Swede.

Regarding data for irons, if I understand what you are asking, the driver data can't really be correlated. Each iron would have it's own ideal launch conditions (launch angle, spin rate, ball speed) which would be based off of the player's swing speed.  The ball is designed to perform differently with longer clubs than shorter clubs, but if you can get dialed in with your driver, you'll be pretty close with the rest of the set also.

The driver/shaft combo certainly affects the trajectory as well, and sometimes guys are playing the wrong ball and the wrong driver.  But what I see more often is a player who goes through the fitting process when purchasing a driver and irons, then they play whatever ball happens to be on sale.  It would be like using a different driver every time they played!  When trying to optimize trajectory, the ball is a good place to start.  Why buy a new driver when moving to a different ball can make the difference?  Sometimes the ball will help some, but to get where a player needs to be a different shaft or driver might be needed also.

A lot of guys will go through a ball fitting whenever they get a new driver, which is not a bad idea.  Usually, if your previous driver fit properly and the new one fits properly, the ball will work just fine.  I usually suggest going through a ball fitting at least every-other-season just to make sure.  Sometimes our swings evolve...maybe your swing has improved or swing speed has increased, or it could be the other way, but it's good to make sure your stuff is correct.

[1badbadger]

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

To be clear, I have never talked about "the Titleist fitting." I don't know what they do to fit players. I'm simply talking about their recommendation to start at the green and work backward, but ultimately to consider all the shots you play in a round of golf, not just ones with the driver.

I'm not talking about "here's two balls, try them out." I'm talking about the idea of "here are 30 kinds of golf ball. I eliminated a few because they felt horrible off my putter. I eliminated a few more for poor performance around the green. I eliminated some more for poor spin or flight with my irons. Of the six that I had left, these two performed well with my driver, so one of them is a good fit.

If they have a super official "ball fitting" process, I wasn't talking about that, nor was I talking about a "here is a Pro V1 and a Pro V1x… hit some shots and pick one."

So… I wish you hadn't devoted that much attention to the "Titleist method" in your post when that's not at all what I was asking.

My point was… I'm skeptical that the Bridgestone method (only hitting a few balls, not doing much to account for consistent tee heights, ball position, players getting "warmed up" during the process, etc., only using the driver and disregarding the rest of the shots) is a great method, either.

I gotcha.  Well, the scenario you mentioned where a player starts with 30 balls and whittles them down until there is one left would be what I consider a good method (realistically you could probably start with less, but I get your point) and some players may be able to successfully do it this way, but I'll bet 80-90% of the time the ball that is chosen isn't the ball that fits them the best out of those 30.

Regarding Bridgestone's method, I just explained in detail that the fitting doesn't stop with the driver, the other shots/clubs are not disregarded and it's more shots than fittings with other companies.  When robotic testing is done, everything is highly controlled and set up exactly the same for each shot of a test, but player testing will always have slight differences which will happen just like when playing.  How would things like tee height and ball position be kept consistent in the method you outlined? 

[Vinsk]

I say no to the entire process regardless of the method. I think it's just another entertaining activity that in reality makes no difference whatsoever. Erik once said he could [ shoot 75 with his wife's clubs, harder to shoot 71.] Hardly the case with simply changing the golf ball. Minor adjustments can certainly have large effects but it's not like the lens of the Hubble telescope. A player playing the 'wrong ball' may be true based on monitor readings, but unless you're doing extreme comparisons such as a Pinnacle vs Titleist Balata I simply don't believe the differences will have any measurable effect on the average players game. It's marketing, it's a gig to satisfy the very addictive notion that 'this is gonna help my game.' I mean ParBar? Really? A snack is gonna help you shoot lower scores? I don't buy it. If a golfer is given a ball and he hits his best drive of the day...oh...he loves that ball! The chances it was the ball? Close to zero. If the average golfer did in fact work through 30 balls through elimination, what are the chances he/she would choose the same golfball at the end of each trial, using the same batch and the balls were not labeled? No better than a 1:30 chance. Hey, it's fun, it sells balls...but it's purely entertainment.

[iacas]

48 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I say no to the entire process regardless of the method. I think it's just another entertaining activity that in reality makes no difference whatsoever. Erik once said he could [ shoot 75 with his wife's clubs, harder to shoot 71.] Hardly the case with simply changing the golf ball. Minor adjustments can certainly have large effects but it's not like the lens of the Hubble telescope. A player playing the 'wrong ball' may be true based on monitor readings, but unless you're doing extreme comparisons such as a Pinnacle vs Titleist Balata I simply don't believe the differences will have any measurable effect on the average players game.

I don't agree with that. When @mvmac and I played the purple Top-Flite ball in Arizona, the performance differences were huge. That was a mid-level ball.

And I've seen ball fittings help get someone 15-20 yards. That is one or two fewer clubs into every green. That's going to have an effect on scoring.

48 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

No better than a 1:30 chance. Hey, it's fun, it sells balls...but it's purely entertainment.

Untrue.

9 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

I gotcha.  Well, the scenario you mentioned where a player starts with 30 balls and whittles them down until there is one left would be what I consider a good method (realistically you could probably start with less, but I get your point) and some players may be able to successfully do it this way, but I'll bet 80-90% of the time the ball that is chosen isn't the ball that fits them the best out of those 30.

Yeah, 30 is extreme… but I don't know if you can say it's not the best for them 90% of the time. A player might be willing to give up a few yards with the driver if the ball performs better with the irons and on shots around the green, or if the player can't stand how the best ball feels off his putter.

It feels like you're simply saying that the Bridgestone "hit a few balls with your driver and in 10 minutes we'll tell you" method is going to determine the "best" ball the vast majority of the time. I think it's more about marketing and is really prone to error given the sample size and variability of the impacts and swings an average golfer makes.

Better than nothing? Absolutely. Half-way to a good fit? Maybe. But the best ever? Of course not. Nothing done with just one club in ten minutes could be.

9 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

Regarding Bridgestone's method, I just explained in detail that the fitting doesn't stop with the driver, the other shots/clubs are not disregarded and it's more shots than fittings with other companies.

Where? You said after the player is fit with a driver in a few minutes they're given a two-ball sleeve and told to continue their testing. But that's not a ball fitting - their "ball fit" is already determined, and it's the two-ball sleeve they get.

9 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

How would things like tee height and ball position be kept consistent in the method you outlined? 

I didn't say it would.

But the method I posed at least uses different clubs and looks at different shots.

Again, the Bridgestone method's better than doing nothing. I'm just not in line with thinking it's quite as good as you are. Can it ballpark a good fit? Yeah I would imagine that is accurate.

[Lihu]

11 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

There is perception that the Titleist fitting covers everything and the Bridgestone only addresses the driver.  One of the biggest issues I have with the Titleist method is it's not a real golf ball fitting.  They give you a Pro V1 2-ball pack and a Pro V1x 2-ball pack and basically tell you to hit some shots and see which one you like best.

I'm definitely going to have to go to some of these "fittings", if anything to get the free balls.

Pretty much anything from the e6 to the S330 is good for me, and am not sure how many strokes I can save per round? The main thing for me is the "feel".

Some days, the ProV1x/S330 feel good and others the ProV1/e6 feel good. On cold days (like less than 40F) I prefer to play the e6. It just feel good. On hot summer days (>100F), the ProV1x feels the best.

Here's how I would break down their usage and I already have a large supply of each type***:

30F to 40F- e6

40F to 50F- 330(lower swing speed types)/V1

50F to 80F- V1/S330

80F and higher- ProV1x

***I also have a large assortment of other premium balls I find here and there, especially after a rain storm.

If I were to rate quality, Bridgestone and Titleist are pretty much equal to me.

[No Mulligans]

20 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

 But I'd like everyone to keep an open mind and realize what I'm saying is true and it makes sense.

Intentional irony?

If I'm to accept what you say as being true, how is that keeping an open mind?

[mvmac]

I always saw the B-Fit as an "intro" fitting. Hit your ball with your driver (I had to use a Bridgestone driver), check out the data, hit a couple of models of Bridgestone balls and see if there is a difference.

The ball that I was "fit" for is the one I've been using for the past few years (along with Snell) and for me has performed better than the Chrome Soft and ProV1 which were generally a little shorter off full swings, seemed to launch higher and spun a little more. 

By no means a complete fit but I think it makes sense that if you are going to "fit" for one thing it should be with the driver. I want to know the ball that's going to perform the best with my driver and I can evaluate from there. Most likely they're not going to recommend a Pinnacle type ball for me that won't perform well on approach shots or around the green. 

From a marketing perspective I think it's a good thing, it shows they aren't afraid to compare themselves against the competition, you get to look at some actual data and walk away with free balls.

[Vinsk]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't agree with that. When @mvmac and I played the purple Top-Flite ball in Arizona, the performance differences were huge. That was a mid-level ball.

And I've seen ball fittings help get someone 15-20 yards. That is one or two fewer clubs into every green. That's going to have an effect on scoring.

First, you and Mike are not 'average golfers' by any means. You've seen ball fittings get 'someone' 15-20 yards? Who? A 20hcp or someone like yourself? Was it an extreme ball change? I mentioned the extreme having a difference. But don't tell me your player switched from a Bridgestone E6 to a ProV1 and gained 15-20 yds. consistently enough that it was statistically significant. Unlike golfers of your caliber, the average golfer has varying swings that can produce awful and fantastic results all in one round. If I catch a pinnacle on the screws it will go farther than ProV1x off the heel. Again, extremes are noticeable I will admit. The range balls I hit have no action around the greens compared to ProV1 or a Srixon Soft. Again, I believe differences are noticeable with the extreme ball makes. But I do not buy that a Bridgestone E6 will show a noticeable difference than an E7 from the average golfer. You can't possibly believe a 20hcp would test 30 balls and consistently Choose one as better than the rest. Come on Erik....

[1badbadger]

2 hours ago, No Mulligans said:

Intentional irony?

If I'm to accept what you say as being true, how is that keeping an open mind?

  Ha! Ok, you got me there.  What I meant by that was so many people have their mind made up and won't consider anything else, and often it's based on misinformation.  Since I no longer have ties to any OEM I am able to tell it like it is.  Nice catch.   

[Lihu]

31 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

First, you and Mike are not 'average golfers' by any means. You've seen ball fittings get 'someone' 15-20 yards? Who? A 20hcp or someone like yourself? Was it an extreme ball change? I mentioned the extreme having a difference. But don't tell me your player switched from a Bridgestone E6 to a ProV1 and gained 15-20 yds. consistently enough that it was statistically significant. Unlike golfers of your caliber, the average golfer has varying swings that can produce awful and fantastic results all in one round. If I catch a pinnacle on the screws it will go farther than ProV1x off the heel. Again, extremes are noticeable I will admit. The range balls I hit have no action around the greens compared to ProV1 or a Srixon Soft. Again, I believe differences are noticeable with the extreme ball makes. But I do not buy that a Bridgestone E6 will show a noticeable difference than an E7 from the average golfer. You can't possibly believe a 20hcp would test 30 balls and consistently Choose one as better than the rest. Come on Erik....

Maybe he means a statistical average?

I mean if someone duck hooks or slices the ball 150 yards half the time with a "spinny" ball and hits good drives 200 yards. A ball that spins less could increase his average by as much as 20 yards because his hooks and slices turn into draws and fades?

[1badbadger]

7 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I say no to the entire process regardless of the method. I think it's just another entertaining activity that in reality makes no difference whatsoever. Erik once said he could [ shoot 75 with his wife's clubs, harder to shoot 71.] Hardly the case with simply changing the golf ball. Minor adjustments can certainly have large effects but it's not like the lens of the Hubble telescope. A player playing the 'wrong ball' may be true based on monitor readings, but unless you're doing extreme comparisons such as a Pinnacle vs Titleist Balata I simply don't believe the differences will have any measurable effect on the average players game. It's marketing, it's a gig to satisfy the very addictive notion that 'this is gonna help my game.' I mean ParBar? Really? A snack is gonna help you shoot lower scores? I don't buy it. If a golfer is given a ball and he hits his best drive of the day...oh...he loves that ball! The chances it was the ball? Close to zero. If the average golfer did in fact work through 30 balls through elimination, what are the chances he/she would choose the same golfball at the end of each trial, using the same batch and the balls were not labeled? No better than a 1:30 chance. Hey, it's fun, it sells balls...but it's purely entertainment.

If this is true, then club fitting would be purely entertainment also and make no difference.  We could all use different clubs every time we played with no measurable effect on our score.  I'm not so sure all the time, money and effort that has gone towards studying the benefits of club fitting and developing custom club programs and fitting carts and training techs how to conduct a club fitting session would have been spent if it's all just "entertainment".

Now, will there be a huge difference between the e6 and e7 for the average player?  No.  They are both 3 piece distance balls with the same type of cover, so the differences are not huge.  Noticeable, but not huge.  The difference between an e6 and a Pro V1 though will be dramatic.  And the number of players that played the Pro V that have been recommended the e6 are in the tens of thousands.  Not only is there a difference in the performance of those balls, but when you factor in the tendencies of the player the results can be substantial.  If a 10-15 yard gain won't have any affect on the average player's score, then you wouldn't mind if you had to give up 10-15 yards of distance off your drives and 5-7 off your irons, correct?  How would it affect your score if you had to tee off 25 yds  further back on every hole?  I'm guessing it would cost at least a couple of shots.

Can @iacas shoot 75 with his wife's clubs?  Probably.  That doesn't mean that the equipment doesn't matter.  He would certainly need to make adjustments in his swing to hit them, which is hard to repeat precisely, so it would limit him from playing his best.