Since the death of “wound" balls when it was important to 'wrap' the windings in a consistent manner and sort them to their compression. The advances in solid core, two, three and four layer balls allows manufacturers to build in compression and to use “flobber-like” cores and thin mantles and covers to propel balls with whatever characteristics they need. Jack never had a ball designed for his game, nor did Trevino, or Watson. Today Tiger, Els and others have their own ball.
The ProVI has a compression of as ladies ball of ten years ago.
The height a ball bounces from shoulder height makes zero difference when its designed to be squashed by a ton of clubhead mash. Its how the inside of the ball squashes thats more important. Its also why so much money and design has gone into the ball industry lately.
Generally speaking lower compression balls work better for slower swing speed players. High swing speeders need higher compression balls as they deform the lower ones too much. Slower you swing, the more loft and lower compression ball you need to generate lift on the ball.
My post was a general statement concerning the Ball's 'bounciness'. Measured by the Coefficient of Restitution (C.O.R.), this bounce enables the Ball to leave the Clubface at a speed faster than that of the Clubhead. This Coefficient is about 0.7 with the modern 'high compression' Ball, which means that Ball Speed will be approximately 40 percent greater than Clubhead Speed.
My example of dropping a Ball from shoulder height onto concrete was meant only as a simple appeal to the reader's common sense, not to indicate how the C.O.R. is determined in the laboratory or how Ball velocity is tested by Rules Officials. For example, by dropping a Ball from a known height (H) and measuriing its bounce (B), we can determine the C.O.R. as follows:
H/B = Coefficient Squared
Assuming a Ball is dropped 36 inches and bounces 22 inches, the 'bounce Ratio' (H/B) would be 0.61. Since this number is the Coefficient Squared, the Coefficient would be its square root, or 0.78. However, because this test (the drop from the shoulder) was at low speed, the result somewhat overstates the actual coefficient (which we've seen is about 0.7.). This is the rationale behind the Rule stating that the Ball's velocity must be measured on an R&A device that approximates a driver's Impact.
When a Ball is struck under circumstances approximating actual playing conditions, it is deformed ('flattened' on the Clubface) far greater than when simply dropped. This flattening of the Ball and subsequent rebound causes a loss of energy, and the greater the flattening, the greater the loss and the lower the Ball Speed. Because the 'harder' (higher compression) Ball flattens less than the low compression alternative, it leaves the Clubface at a higher Speed.
Certainly, other factors will affect the Ball's ultimate performance and suitability for a given player's Game , e.g., basic structure, dimple design, materials, weight, durability and manufacturing quality controls. But for the reasons stated, the high compression Ball will generally perform better than the low compression Ball (at any clubhead speed).
The 'shop bounce test' has always amused me but its amazing how many people beleive the results
The amount a ball can be deformed (compressed) is the key. Find a ball that compresses best for your game. If it compresses too much then you need a higher compression ball. Its why ladies balls are not much use of most men.
The 'shop bounce test' has always amused me but its amazing how many people believe the results
The amount a ball can be deformed (compressed) is the key. Find a ball that compresses best for your game. If it compresses too much then you need a higher compression ball. Its why ladies balls are not much use of most men.
Paul,
Are you aware of any published studies that support the thesis of increased yardage for 'average' players -- those with slower clubhead speeds -- using a low compression Ball versus a higher compression Ball? Or any other work that would shed authoritative light on this subject? [Unsupported advertiser's claims and recommendations don't fit the definition.] I don't claim to be an expert in this area and would like to know more. As an example, I've never tested the 'average' lady to see if she can hit a 'ladies Ball' further than a 'men's' high compression Ball. My assumption is she cannot, but surely there must have been at least some empirical work done to support this separate product line.
I can tell you that Homer Kelley believed that the higher compression Ball offered superior performance for all classes of players. Ever practical, however, he also stated, "If they can't take advantage of [the better Ball because they're always duffing it], then 'ten cent pickups' will work just as well."
Funny you should ask that. Its a pet project that is being worked on over the next 12mths with lots of balls and playes being studied. The findings will pop up here as I go
I can tell you this. One rather large company spent mega 4 tuning balls to driver to a player 2 years ago and his resulted length increase is there for all to see..... not naming him but he plays golf easy
I'd love to see some results, looking forward to it. I've experimented quite a bit with different brands for my own game. I've been surprised to find that while I give up some distance, I actually really find a slightly softer ball much, much easier to control. I love the feel of the ball 'sticking to the face' through impact. Compression.
Take for example the old top flight xl (or even the original 'tour ediion'). Certainly a fairly 'hot' ball. Compared to the newer top flight 'feel' ball.
At least for my game, there is simply no comparison, the 'feel' ball, while a 'softer' ball, gives me much, much more control. At the very least, much more feedback.
There is little doubt at all that the ball of today is far better than the ball of just a few years ago. I notice this most on windy days. A 'high spin' ball of 5-10 years ago would play great on a calm day, but upshoot in heavy wind. Most balls today can handle cutting through the wind without such extreme upshoot, if any. Of course how much a ball is influenced by the wind is also a matter of how well it compresses (just like throwing a frisbee - lots of spin, as a general rule, equals more control).
__________________
"Support the On Plane Swinging Force in Balance"
"we have no friends, we have no enemies, we have only teachers"
Simplicity buffs, see 5-0, 1-L, 2-0 A and B 10-2-B, 4-D, 6B-1D, 6-B-3-0-1, 6-C-1, 6-E-2
There is much more to the performance of a golf ball than the "compression" of the ball. There is spin, trajectory and aerodynamics. In the hands of a better player, the "feel" factor and spin ratios become beyond important, they become required. If a Top-Flite XL performed the "bounce test" with the most success, then why did the tour players play a wound ball? Fred Couples and many were using the Professional 90's instead of the 100's. This was due to spin, feel, and performance.
Today's ball is completely different (Pro V's) Slightly harder in feel, yet spins plenty and fly's better than ever.
Yet, most practice balls or range balls are Top-Flite or Pinnicles due to the hard as rock feel and durability ..... not performance. Did Lee Trevino really win with Top-Flites?
The next time I'm about to spine align a shaft, I will consider spining it according to the center of gravity of the club. In laymans terms: Letting the clubhead hanging straight down on the shaft and aligning the spine vertically - along the gravity plane.
Linear Mode
