Is Golf Ball Fitting Beneficial For The Average Player?

[dbrux]

Interesting topic. I may have to try one of these ball fittings at the next expo.

[Vinsk]

2 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

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.  

I never said clubs don't matter. Clubs can make a huge difference for both hackers and pros. You simply agreed with me but brought up clubs being unimportant which I never stated. 

Whst I'm saying (perhaps poorly) is that yes, even I see big differences between my floater range balls and a ProV1, BS e, Callaway Soft, etc. But with all the variables in a human golf swing, especially a poor golfer, thinking you can be fitted to one excellent ball over the other seems suspect to me at best. Iron Byron I'm sure can be set to where each swing is virtually identical, club head speed, smash factor, AoA, hardly the case with a human. If Iron Byron could show that 'X' ball consistently went farther than 'y' ball without using an extreme difference, then I would say yes...that ball will get me more distance. I'm just having some fun with this. I prefer to have a ball that can spin like crazy into the green, but still give me distance. So when I hit a SW onto the green and the ball rolls out....I don't immediately think I have the wrong ball, I assume I didn't hit the ball properly to generate spin. 

[iacas]

3 hours 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?

No. Mid-level vs. premium ball. Not lower level (or super distance ball) vs. premium or anything more than one step away.

3 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Unlike golfers of your caliber, the average golfer has varying swings that can produce awful and fantastic results all in one round.

That doesn't mean you can't optimize for the average.

3 hours ago, Vinsk said:

You can't possibly believe a 20hcp would test 30 balls and consistently Choose one as better than the rest. Come on Erik....

The average… And if a ball spins more, then almost every shot will curve more.

2 hours ago, 1badbadger said:

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.  

Right. I'd have to change up my swing, etc. And I'd likely never shoot 70.

[Vinsk]

I'd like to read more on the technology of ball making. What seems difficult to me is that a ball can have 'low spin with the driver but great spin around the greens'. I remember playing with the Balatas 100 and if I skulled it the cover would have a big smile in it. Did the Balata become undesirable because it wasn't great for distance? Does a ball fitting use equipment to tell how much spin a player is getting in regards to short game? Since I assume this is done inside...is there an rpm measurement that tells you the ball is going to work well for you in regards to spin/control on short game shots?

[Denny Bang Bang]

Here is a ball fitting philosophy...

https://www.snellgolf.com/pages/dean-snell-golf-ball-fitting-philosophy

Dean states where he thinks a 15 handicap should spend alot of time fitting (although a 15 is better than the average golfer, IMO).

He also implies the driver is the least important area to focus on in a ball fitting.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Denny Bang Bang

[saevel25]

38 minutes ago, Denny Bang Bang said:

He also implies the driver is the least important area to focus on in a ball fitting.

I mostly play premium golf balls. With that being said, most premium golf balls perform very similar off wedges. I rather fit my golf ball to my driver and irons knowing that the short game and putting differences will be negligible. 

 

[Denny Bang Bang]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I mostly play premium golf balls. With that being said, most premium golf balls perform very similar off wedges. I rather fit my golf ball to my driver and irons knowing that the short game and putting differences will be negligible. 

 

You're also far better than the average golfer, according to your handicap.  But I do understand your point.

 I find it interesting to read the different opinions, from both the experts (Bridgestone, Snell, Titleist), and non-experts such as ourselves.  There are certainly some different opinions, most having some validity.

[mvmac]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

With that being said, most premium golf balls perform very similar off wedges. I rather fit my golf ball to my driver and irons knowing that the short game and putting differences will be negligible. 

Yep, I feel the same way. All "tour performance" premium line of balls will work well enough around/on the greens, I want the ball that works best for me with the full shots.

[iacas]

9 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I'd like to read more on the technology of ball making. What seems difficult to me is that a ball can have 'low spin with the driver but great spin around the greens'.

Because the shorter shots interact primarily with the cover, while the longer shots interact primarily with the core.

It's like in table tennis you can have a fast rubber that spins a lot, a fast rubber that doesn't spin much, a slow rubber that spins a lot, or a slow rubber that doesn't spin much.

Speed comes from the core (the layers and thickness and the padding, whether you've speed glued it, etc.) while spin comes from the tackiness and softness of the outer layer… because when you spin the ball you're giving it a glancing blow, and so you don't compress down into the lower layers (or core), just like a golf ball.

Slower shots with more loft or AoA relative to the face rely on the cover, while faster swings with more straight faces rely on the core or lower levels of the rubber/padding.

[1badbadger]

5 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I never said clubs don't matter. Clubs can make a huge difference for both hackers and pros. You simply agreed with me but brought up clubs being unimportant which I never stated. 

Whst I'm saying (perhaps poorly) is that yes, even I see big differences between my floater range balls and a ProV1, BS e, Callaway Soft, etc. But with all the variables in a human golf swing, especially a poor golfer, thinking you can be fitted to one excellent ball over the other seems suspect to me at best. Iron Byron I'm sure can be set to where each swing is virtually identical, club head speed, smash factor, AoA, hardly the case with a human. If Iron Byron could show that 'X' ball consistently went farther than 'y' ball without using an extreme difference, then I would say yes...that ball will get me more distance. I'm just having some fun with this. I prefer to have a ball that can spin like crazy into the green, but still give me distance. So when I hit a SW onto the green and the ball rolls out....I don't immediately think I have the wrong ball, I assume I didn't hit the ball properly to generate spin. 

What I meant was. how can you claim ball fitting is purely entertainment and has no real effect for the average player but clubs and club fitting does?  

I agree this is a fun debate...I enjoy talking about it with others!  And I don't take it personally, but there is a lot of misinformation and confusion out there that I am in a position to dispel.  Most people form their opinions or beliefs off of what someone else said who may have never even attended a ball fitting event!  I have personally conducted in excess of 12,000 fittings so I have more insight than the average person and am glad to share my knowledge with others.

For example, robotic testing with an Iron Byron is done extensively during the development of a golf ball, and it is invaluable because it does repeat exactly the same every time, but there are still variables involved.  When a comparison between two golf balls is conducted, it's not as cut-and-dried as people think.  I would get asked every day "how much longer is this ball with the robot", and there isn't a good way to answer that question.  If the robot is set up with a 10.5* driver with a regular flex shaft and programmed to swing 85 mph, the results will be different than if an 8.5* driver with a stiff flex swung at 100 mph was used.  The launch angle, spin rates, and trajectory will be different, so the same ball might be longer in both tests, but by a different amount.  What surprises most people is a ball fitting makes the biggest difference for mid to high handicappers than it does for better players.  Their swings may not be as consistent but their tendencies are greater. 

[David in FL]

Assuming that everyone pretty much agrees that there are differences in the performance of different balls, and that there are wildly varying swings amongst golfers, how could it not be helpful to objectively evaluate how various balls perform for you individually?

[1badbadger]

12 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I'd like to read more on the technology of ball making. What seems difficult to me is that a ball can have 'low spin with the driver but great spin around the greens'. I remember playing with the Balatas 100 and if I skulled it the cover would have a big smile in it. Did the Balata become undesirable because it wasn't great for distance? Does a ball fitting use equipment to tell how much spin a player is getting in regards to short game? Since I assume this is done inside...is there an rpm measurement that tells you the ball is going to work well for you in regards to spin/control on short game shots?

The phenomenon of a ball with low spin off the driver yet high spin off short irons and wedges is called "spin separation".  This is a benefit of the modern solid core, multi-layer ball (3, 4, 5-piece models).  With the driver and other long clubs the ball is deformed at impact, and more deformation means less spin.  With shorter clubs the ball isn't deformed as much, so the type of material used for the cover largely determines spin.  2-piece balls don't have this performance feature. 

Balata is a natural material found in Balata trees and was becoming harder to get,  About the same time better methods were developed for testing and a better understanding of ball flight was emerging.  Like you mentioned, if you looked at a balata ball the wrong way you could put a smile in it, so it was not very durable, it spun too much and often would go out of round. Urethane is better in every aspect as the replacement for balata.  It's more durable, and believe it or not it's actually softer than balata but more consistent.  

One of the challenges with ball fitting is developing a good method for testing irons and wedge data.  Bridgestone was going to start implementing irons into the fitting process, but it didn't happen.  The big issue at the time was because the launch monitors they used were the type that captures images of the ball at impact, so the ball had to be placed on a specific spot each shot.  This worked fine when hitting a driver off a tee, but when an iron shot is hit off of turf and a divot is created the ball can't be placed on that spot anymore.  Research was done on artificial mats and a very good design was found and an order was placed for 30 of them I believe, but before they were delivered the company went out of business. To answer your question, I don't know of any data on what the ideal amount of spin or rpms are for short game shots.  There are so many variables that it would be difficult to determine.