Golf Ball Bounce Test - Legitimate???
Bill Jarrett
accumulated over the season.
I have been holding 2 golf balls at a time against the rafters in my
basement (approx 7 1\2 feet high) and letting them fall equal distances to
the concrete floor. I found one ball that bounced particularly high, and
bounced all others against that "master".
I am assuming the balls that bounce the highest and take the longest time to
come to rest are the liveliest and therefore the better balls if distance is
the objective. (i.e.. If it bounces well off the concrete it should "bounce"
well off the club?)
Is this a legitimate measure and conclusion?
Invariably, the better balls in this test are Topflite, Dunlop and ProStaff.
Titleist, Callaway, Precept etc are almost always the worst.
You can also "hear" from the test that the balls that "fail" have a softer
sound to them as they hit the concrete.
Any comments or help would be welcomed.
Thank you
tony
understand that when you hit these balls with a driver or an iron, they are
significantly deformed, and their bounce back rate from a drop isn't a good
measure of that characteristic. On the other hand, it is representitive, I
think, in how well the ball comes off your putter. Take some of the balls that
boune say 4 feet from a 5 foot drop, and others that bounce only 3 feet. Then
go practice putting with them. I think you find that if you putt say 10 good
bouncing balls at a hole 12 feet away to 'calibrate' your putting swing, then
mix the two kinds of balls (have someone else place the balls on the green so
that you can't see which is which) you'll have two grouping when you're done.
there'll be for the most part balls at two distinct distances.
Give it a try, it's kind of fun.
bbrr
way. and 'distance' balls indeed bounce higher than
others. the balls that bounce high are do seem lively
on the course as well. they jump into the woods
with enthusiasm.
beyond that, I'm not sure what it proves.
"Bill Jarrett" <js...@sentex.net> wrote in message
news:3fe78f16$1...@news.sentex.net...
Kenny Stultz
>
>
>Is this a legitimate measure and conclusion?
>
>Invariably, the better balls in this test are Topflite, Dunlop and ProStaff.
>Titleist, Callaway, Precept etc are almost always the worst.
>
>You can also "hear" from the test that the balls that "fail" have a softer
>sound to them as they hit the concrete.
>
>
Not legit. The dynamics of a golf ball dropped from the rafters is
significantly different from the dynamics when it is struck with a club due to
the vast difference in impact speed. The ball deformations at impact are so
different that you really are comparing apples and oranges.
I'll certainly be willing to trade you all the Topflites I have for all the
Titleist, Callaway, Precept balls that are flunking your test.
Kenny
--
Kenny Stultz - Troll and SPAM intolerant
RSG Rollcall: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=stultzk
"Golf is the only sport where a precise knowledge of the Rules can
earn one a reputation for bad sportsmanship"
Pat Whelton
I think it must be terrible having to live up North if all you can do is
bounce golf balls off your basement floor. Give me the mosquitoes and
humidity anytime.
Blair P. Houghton
>Now that winter is here I have been going through the golf balls I
>accumulated over the season.
So have I. But I have none left to play with in the basement.
I recommend more golf.
--Blair
"Please pay at the register."
PC
Well, at least you know what ball will give a better kick off of the
cart path.
Douglas Siebert
>Now that winter is here I have been going through the golf balls I
>accumulated over the season.
>I have been holding 2 golf balls at a time against the rafters in my
>basement (approx 7 1\2 feet high) and letting them fall equal distances to
>the concrete floor. I found one ball that bounced particularly high, and
>bounced all others against that "master".
>I am assuming the balls that bounce the highest and take the longest time to
>come to rest are the liveliest and therefore the better balls if distance is
>the objective. (i.e.. If it bounces well off the concrete it should "bounce"
>well off the club?)
>Is this a legitimate measure and conclusion?
You are measuring how much distance you'd get if you had a clubhead speed
of about 12 mph, ignoring aerodynamic effects and spin. In other words,
it tells you nothing about what happens when you hit a golf ball....well,
other than maybe which balls might go a few feet further when you hit a
short chip or pitch. Most golfers usually aren't worried about getting
more distance on their greenside shots, however :)
I suppose what you could tell, maybe, is if you compared two balls of an
identical make and one bounced much less it might be "dead" (maybe you
fished it out of a lake, or it spent the winter rattling around the back
of your trunk) But I'm not really even sure there'd be anything to that.
--
Douglas Siebert dsie...@excisethis.khamsin.net
"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning,
that's as good as they're going to feel all day" -- Frank Sinatra
Eliyahu Rooff
"Douglas Siebert" <dsie...@excisethis.khamsin.net> wrote in message
news:bsjd64$fv4$1...@sword.avalon.net...
much higher speed? I mean, if the liveliness of a ball makes no
difference, why are we spending extra dollars on anything other than
practice balls?
Eliyahu
Douglas Siebert
>"Douglas Siebert" <dsie...@excisethis.khamsin.net> wrote in message
>news:bsjd64$fv4$1...@sword.avalon.net...
>>
>> You are measuring how much distance you'd get if you had a clubhead
>speed
>> of about 12 mph, ignoring aerodynamic effects and spin. In other
>words,
>> it tells you nothing about what happens when you hit a golf
>ball....well,
>> other than maybe which balls might go a few feet further when you hit
>a
>> short chip or pitch. Most golfers usually aren't worried about
>getting
>> more distance on their greenside shots, however :)
>>
>OTOH, wouldn't the difference be likely to be multiplied by an impact at
>much higher speed? I mean, if the liveliness of a ball makes no
>difference, why are we spending extra dollars on anything other than
>practice balls?
If the ball had a uniform response to compression/impact, yes. But balls
are far from uniform, what with one or more cover layers and one or two
interior layers, all having deliberately different properties. Dropping
the ball is probably only testing the elasticity of the cover layers,
which isn't going to tell you anything about how far it goes on a full
shot where you are compressing the entire ball to a surprising degree.
And the "liveliness" of the ball is just one factor, if I could make a
ball identical to a regular one except for being totally smooth with no
dimples, you'd quickly find out the contribution of "liveliness" to how
far the ball goes is quite a bit less than you seem to think.
tony
the ball will come off your putter. It can make a difference of a foot on a 5
foot putt. That means if it's a Pelz putt, where you want the speed to
corrospond to a miss of 18 inches, if you had been putting with a dead ball and
have substituted a high bouncing one, that 18 inch tap in on your f foot put
has become 30 inches, and not quite a tap in.
Bill Jarrett
Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful reply.
Much appreciated.
Bill Jarrett
bunavicz
Robert Seaton
Interesting artical however winter golf in the UK normally means
shortened courses and winter greens. Carry is more important that run.
Being able to compress a softer ball gives a better rebound of the
club. Have you tried using a 80 compression ball. You may be surprised
>
> .
Annika1980
>Interesting artical however winter golf in the UK normally means
>shortened courses and winter greens. Carry is more important that run.
>Being able to compress a softer ball gives a better rebound of the
>club. Have you tried using a 80 compression ball. You may be surprised
This is probably not true.
Let me preface this by saying that compression numbers are a thing of the past
and should largely be ignored as just advertising. Most manufacturers don't
even specify compression anymore and most of the compression numbers come from
salesmen and reps.
In the old days, many balls had rubber windings and these windings would
compress under the force of a compression gauge. The more they compressed, the
softer the ball and the lower the compression rating.
A solid ball like a Top-Flite, however, would hardly move the meter and would
give really high readings like 105, 110, etc.
Today, most balls are solid core with layered covers. So if you use a standard
compression gauge to "squeeze" the ball, much of what you are measuring is the
softness of the cover. Or perhaps it could have a harder cover with a softer
center.
The point is that the compression gauge tells you little about what happens
when a clubhead hits the ball. Also, the impact is only one of the factors
that determines the distance a ball travels. Much work has recently been done
on aerodynamics (drag, lift, dimple patterns, etc.) to allow the modern balls
to stay in the air longer with the same force.
These properties have even been customized to various swing speeds so a ball
that Tiger Woods uses might react differently when you and I hit it (Sparky,
you can ignore this part).
Now, back to the old days....
One of the golf mags did an in-depth study on compression years ago and their
conclusions were that compression numbers affected "feel' more than
performance. The study concluded that in all cases, a higher compression ball
would go slightly farther than a ball of lower compression. But the increase
wasn't significant (a yard or two, tops).
So just as a higher compression ("harder") ball will compress less in cold
weather, so will a lower compression ("softer") ball.
So the very slight distance advantage of a harder ball is still there.