Nemicu

@iacas - My point? The ProV1 proves that there is no need to market a ball based on swing speed selection. End of discussion. Because it is the most popular ball - and the most sold, it proves beyond any doubt that ball selection need not be the complex issue that everyone makes it out to be. @Pretzel - what is the performance advantage of using one ball for everything? Are you kidding? Let's flip your argument - lets say you love the way the ball drives but hate the way it feels when you putt. Do you sacrifice the feel for the ball you are using the majority of the time? Why play a ball that does not suit the greatest majority of scoring potential? Lets face it - most if not all balls max out at or around the same distance for our own swing speeds. They do not have a huge margin of difference - so why place so much emphasis on this fact? Better to have one ball that performs consistently well on all clubs - if you really did have a massive swing speed, what makes you think the Speed Regime would perform any better in spin control? I'm done explaining why ball fitting around a swing speed is a bad idea and why the market leading ball manufacturer seems to agree with me. For those still in denial, you can still buy balls in sleeves of 3 to avoid any unnecessary expenditure.

That sounds like the Callaway Speed Regime range of balls. Titleist have a different approach - let the numbers do the talking. I've yet to see any evidence from Callaway that the alleged "performance advantage" (reading their blurb) has any validity attached to it - other than "trust us - we know what's best for you". Titleists record speaks for itself, even if you buy into the alleged 'they pay pros to use their ball". Pros are pretty dumb, but they're not dumb enough to use a ball that isn't suitable to their game. It'll be interesting to see the take up on tour of the Speed Regime - if any.

Here's one fact for ya - The ProV1 was and still is the best selling ball worldwide and has never used the principle of fitting to a specific swing speed or player. It has been sold on the principle that fitting a ball to swing speed is a myth. Hmmm....so they've been wrong all the time eh? Or maybe I'm the one in denial?

Oh honey hush. You're sounding all cranky. You'll be telling us next they float on water.

I think you are contradicting yourself again. At ANY swing speed, you are still only accounting for small percentage of your golf round. Aerodynamics, layers, or any other component Callaway (or you) is touting as "optimised" have absolutely zero effect on shots played for the greatest majority of the round. That is chips and putts - that is a fact for every golfer at every level. So I would ask one last time: how is that ball optimised for anything? The answer is it isn't. That is not an opinion either - it is also a fact. You can argue all you want, but all Callaway have developed is a sales angle based on peoples inability to realise what a golf ball does or which part of their game it is most important to. Bridgestone try a similar tack in alleged "ball fitting". Just about every other manufacturer has also stated that their latest and greatest ball has the most optimal dimple pattern making it their longest ball ever. They have also come and gone and no longer appear in their inventories. Why? because they are pure marketing gimmicks to get you to buy their ball. Titleist ProV1 is the best selling ball worldwide and is the best performing ball in their range - it's also suitable for the widest range of handicap levels and is not specific to any swing speed. That is why it is the most recommended ball by Titleist. Does everybody need to buy it then? No, because other factors such as colour, feel, and price are also factors that affect consumer choice and consequently other balls appear in their range. None of them are optimised for swing speeds either. None of them feature layers greater than 3. Titleist is the #1 sold and played golf ball worldwide at all levels. They know a thing or two about golf balls - they have proven that in and out of court against Callaway too. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. Don't forget to check back in a years time when the ProV1 is still the #1 ball and you're still wrong.

We'll certainly have to agree to disagree. However, Callaway need to decide which element has any value in their sales pitch. They say the cover is optimised to aerodynamics - that has absolutely nothing to do with the other multiple layers to which you refer in relation to ball dynamics. In other words, the other four layers under the cover have zero effect on aerodynamics - the main selling point of the swing speed optimisation concept. Only elements that come into direct contact with airflow can have any effect on aerodynamics- inner layers don't. You can't argue with physics, Callaway.

I understand, having worked in the trade for several years- I just don't think you do. Even taking into account a players swing profile (e.g. the ubiquitous 105mph swinger) who may swing at lower speeds in correspondence with each descending iron length, the spin rates and trajectory are not an absolute and a variety of shots may been played with partial swings and shot shapes, from dolly chips to full out smoked 2-irons and every potential shot in between. The ball has no way of being matched to any one of those variables - but crucially, the ball in any range of index or scoring criteria will be hit more times with a putter than any other club. This factor alone makes advertising balls matched to a swing speed range pure marketing BS - and laughable.

So by definition, a golf ball that is -quote- "optimised for a 105 mph driver" is not also optimised for an 8-iron for 75mph? It's impossible to have one optimised over the other because the launch characteristics (not least the actual ball speed) are completely different - speed, launch angle, spin rate - these are the 3 fundamentals of ball distance. A golf ball hit with a driver does not have the same effect as that hit with an 8-iron - therefore it cannot be optimised for both. If you choose a ball that has been allegedly optimised for the driver at 105mph, it cannot transfer that quality to a ball hit at 75mph with a different loft and spin rate - that is a physical fact. Numerous balls have been tested over the years with both robotic machines and more importantly human testers. Not one ball has ever been optimised for any one individual for a variety of shots. If distance were indeed the primary goal, we would all be using rock hard distance balls with little spin - which of course we don't. Coupled with this, every ball within the market leaders range achieves a peak distance hit under optimal conditions of around 4 yards of each other - hardly enough to make much of a difference to anyone, let alone a touring pro. What the touring pro is actually looking for is a ball capable of being controlled with good spin and feel on ALL shots. And lastly, if you took Callaways 90 mph ball and hit it with a 105mph swing it travels a total distance of within 2-3 yards of the correctly "optimised" ball other under test conditions (yes we have performed those tests) which begs the question: how are they optimised for swing speed again? If you need any further proof, you have to ask yourself why the market leading ball (for some years now) has never found the need to be optimised for one player or swing speed over another, simply because that is not possible and furthermore there is no need.

Really? Would you care to explain how a ball allegedly optimised to 15% of your game works? I get how multi layer balls work for a variety of swing speeds - that is the intended purpose - but saying that a ball, or any ball, is optimised for a specific swing speed (and no, there isn't a equivalent iron swing speed) is plain wrong. Kind of dumb, especially when you consider one of their previous marketing lines was: "you can't argue with physics". It seems like Callaway has clearly defied the laws of physics - or defied the laws of golf. You can't change your ball mid hole to suit the swing speed that will be applied - let alone the trajectory, spin, shape and last but not least - the distance that may or may not be required. Like I said, nice try Callaway, but nothing other than "gimmick" passes this golfers BS radar.

Nothing irritates me more than marketing aimed at one specific aspect of golf ball use. So you take your 105mph ball - how many times during a round of golf will that ball be struck at 105 mph? Maybe 10? The rest of time it will be used at less than this speed for irons, wedge shots, chips and putts - all which arguably contribute more to scoring which is what a ball is all about. So in reality, the marketing aimed at matching the golf ball to your swing speed is largely irrelevant. Nice one Callaway - you really thought that one out.

Check with most pro shops or Ebay - plenty of shaft pulls out there WITH grips attached, saving you money. Therefore a set of used pulls with grips will set you back $100 I guess for DG R300. Add on a bit of labor cost (if you're not doing the work yourself) and potentially you can have a set of irons with the shafts and grips you want for less than $200.

er...no you're not. Clubs don't shaft themselves - somebody has to do it. That means the existing shaft needs to be pulled, the head is then cleaned, prepped and weighed. New shaft tip prepped, dry fit, trim and swing weight adjust, epoxy, ferrule turned down, grip fitted and loft and lie check. That is not free by anyone (certainly not me) and time and components cost money. That means the cost of a reshaft is somewhere approaching $50 per club for a cheapish steel shaft. It's still cheaper than a new set of irons, but if you want to avoid even more costs, buy a secondhand set with the spec you want. Oh - and while you're at it, never assume the readings from a launch monitor in a GG store are anything other than laughable.

Interesting they had so many left handed demos in store. But then again, the rest of your story is equally far fetched.

Whatever works I guess. Personally, I think you need to see a shrink and learn how to play golf. In that order. But hey -- whatever works.

Exactly. Irons don't have to be expensive if you let some other poor mug buy them brand new and you do your bit by recycling old gear. The AP2 is a great iron in any model and can be had for a good price used - meaning you save both ways and it's the genuine article and not "something close but cheap". If you really must buy new clubs (someone does after all) then perhaps you need to start saving - the AP2 is worth it.