Jump to content

TRUCKER

Established Member
  • Content Count

    131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Off to a Great Start

About TRUCKER

  • Rank
    Well Established Member

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    CALIFORNIA

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    15
  • Handedness
    Righty

Recent Profile Visitors

1,053 profile views
  1. Fine. My point is Mr. Snell did no testing. All he did was make an anecdotal statement. Is he more credible than some jo-blow? Of course. I just found it funny that from that 15 seconds he spent on pond balls, we get comments like "yeah, that's what I figured", or "yeah, I've held watered balls before, they're heavier". No, he hasn't done a "pond ball test". If he did why didn't he reference it in the video?
  2. All you guys on here talk about FACTS. Anytime someone has an OPINION on something you all circle the wagons and repeat "We only debate facts here". Also what about his reason for choosing the right ball should be based on 100 yards and in. He actually referenced the old "driver only accounts for 14 shots, so that's not where you score". That's BLASPHEMY around here.
  3. So you trust someone who makes NEW balls, and spent all of 15 seconds saying pond balls aren't as good. As opposed to a real test done by an unbiased phd at the university level. Ok...🤦‍♂️
  4. There's no difference. If there was Titleist with all their billions of $$$ would have multiple tests showing what a huge difference a new ball can make in your game.
  5. The biggest difference in performance from all the pond ball testing I referenced was 1 yard. Most were 1/2 yard or less. It was done from the same school you're referencing. So I don't know where you found that. 👌
  6. Ok I see what your saying now. But wouldn't that mean a LM gives false reads then?
  7. What difference does it make? The results are the only thing that matters.
  8. Found another test done on used balls (not water balls) vs. new. Again no difference in distance or performance.
  9. A PHD from Michigan ran the study. It seems pretty legit. I get your point though.
  10. Ok I googled it and found an answer. There's basically no difference in performance of a brand new ball, tested against a ball that was recovered from a water hazard. They tested balls that were placed in the water for 1/3/5 months. Then tested them against a brand new version and found "maybe" a 1% difference. The balls used in this independent research were prov1.
  11. 🤔...This concerns me a little. I have 200+ prov1/prov1x/avx, and another 100+ tour level balls, (bridgestone, tm, snell, Srixon, etc), that I've found. They're like brand new, but who knows how old. Also, I will play the same ball 100 +/- holes sometimes until I lose it, or bruise it. Are you saying I could be losing 10-15 yards playing these used/old age balls as opposed to starting with a brand new ball every round?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...