Custom Ball Fitting

Just wondered if anyone has had one of these done.

I've got one tomorrow at a course near me, costing £10 to have it done but if you buy 2 dozen of whatever your resulting ball is you get that taken off the total price.

Never really thought to much about ball I use kind of buy whatever the best deal is at time.

Nice idea of a con if you ask me, what 's the saying "fools and their money are easily parted"

Now I would be surprised it they did not tell you the most expensive ball is best for you.

OP: its only a tenner for their time. If I don't wish to buy then I won't. In all honesty it'll be worth the tenner for the 45 minutes on the trackman alone.

Oh and I'm no fool.

id pay 10er to hit any balls on the trackman!

Sounds like a good sales technique to me. If you aren't going to buy what they recommend it kind of defeats the object of the whole process.

Like having a lesson and completely ignoring what you're told

Fader wrote:Just wondered if anyone has had one of these done.

I've got one tomorrow at a course near me, costing £10 to have it done but if you buy 2 dozen of whatever your resulting ball is you get that taken off the total price.

Never really thought to much about ball I use kind of buy whatever the best deal is at time.

I looked for this sort of thing earlier in the year, but without success. Is it a manufacturer specific fitting, or generic?

Hibbz: I didn't say I wouldn't buy it, I just meant I'm not obliged to and if I don't feel like it suits me then I'll take the data away and think about it.

Smithers: Its generic, all ranges from all OEMs. That's why I thought for a tenner I get 45mins on trackman and the chance to try everything I haven't so far.

I tend to stick to mid range balls at the moment whatever I can get at the time for around £25-£30 a dozen. The last purchase was a while ago and was Srixon AD333.

Be very interested to hear the outcome, then. Is it something they always offer at that course, or is it a one-off visit?

Fader
You never mentioned the trackman on your original post?

Still think its a con, you can enlighten all us after your visit!

Fader

I reckon if you played with a beaten up commando from 15 years ago or a brand new custom fit ball your score would be the same.

If you post your swing I will tell you what ball to use for free?

Op: I did omit the trackman on original post as simply didn't think to mention it. We'll see what the outcome is as to whether its a con.

Smithers: I've got my fitting at 10 am so I'll try to post the results at lunchtime.

Mac: what a load of guff, I doubt an old commando would anywhere near as far as any current ball. Next you'll be saying I should use a feathery and I very much doubt you could tell me what I should use by looking at my swing. Which coincidentally you have seen from the links a few of us posted on here a while back; but that wouldn't help anyway as my swing has progress from then and my address position and top of back swing is now more on plane.

Fader
Think mac might have sun stroke or the heat has got to him.

He used to post some decent crap, but now it is totally utter crap he posts.

I didn't say it would go as far, I said you would score the same.

If you played 100 rounds with a commando and 100 rounds with your custom fit ball I would like to bet your scoring average would be the same.


oldparwin

I agree, I was just thinking the other day that I had posted some real drivel on here of late. I promise to up my game, although I am not sure how.

oldparwin wrote:Fader
Think mac might have sun stroke or the heat has got to him.

He used to post some decent crap, but now it is totally utter crap he posts.

Theres something we certainly agree on.

Mac, I very much doubt they'd be the same, I'd be willing to wager it'd be far lower with the better ball.

Fader wrote:Hibbz: I didn't say I wouldn't buy it, I just meant I'm not obliged to and if I don't feel like it suits me then I'll take the data away and think about it.

So what you're saying is that someone will give up however much of their time and spend £10 on something they believe in (or they wouldn't be doing in the first place) and then when they get the results decide they no longer believe in it?

Now that would seem rather foolish.

oldparwin wrote:Nice idea of a con if you ask me, what 's the saying "fools and their money are easily parted"

Now I would be surprised it they did not tell you the most expensive ball is best for you.

I think it is more likely that certain balls are suited to certain types of players rather than a global oil company conspiracy, don't you?

Amazing how people will dismiss simple proven science such as ball fitting but perfectly willing to understand crazy crackpot theories with no factual basis at all.

Super

You are just jealous

Hibbz wrote:

Fader wrote:Hibbz: I didn't say I wouldn't buy it, I just meant I'm not obliged to and if I don't feel like it suits me then I'll take the data away and think about it.

So what you're saying is that someone will give up however much of their time and spend £10 on something they believe in (or they wouldn't be doing in the first place) and then when they get the results decide they no longer believe in it?

Now that would seem rather foolish.

I think your misreading what I'm saying, maybe I don't explain myself very well. Basically I mean I'm not obliged to buy and if I don't want to buy straight away I can take the info away and think about. Also as I said I'd pay the £10 just for a trackman session.

Likely I will buy just see what happens

super_realist wrote:...Amazing how people will dismiss simple proven science such as ball fitting but perfectly willing to understand crazy crackpot theories with no factual basis at all.

Proven science? So I assume they'll be fitting Fader in a variety of temperatures and humidities? Maybe they can recommend a Winter ball and a Summer ball?

WHy not Navy, it's pretty obvious that people have swings which create different spin rates (both backspin and sidespin) and launch angles and prefer balls of different feel for short game. Why not consider a ball best suited to a player with the most suitable compression?

It's an absolute fact that most players in the game will not be able to get the best out of a premium ball like a Pro V or a ZStar, so if a ball fitting shows them they are better off with an NXT Tour rather than a Pro -V then it's useful information.

Have you never seen a hacker using a brand new pro v and wondered why they are wasting their money?

Is a ball for winter that important? Probably not as no one plays that seriously in the UK during the cold and ground conditions make a ball less receptive anyway, but in the competitive period of the summer where temperatures fall within a fairly reliable bracket it's obvious to tailor a player to a ball to best suit you. Simple ballistics really.

Personally I prefer a Bridgestone 330RXS over a Pro V, if I can tell the difference surely ballistic technology can determine which ball reacts and behaves best for you?

Besides it's only a tenner, so it's hardly a big deal, but if that tenner leads to a ball which can save you a shot every couple of rounds then it's money well spent

Interested in the results myself. I'm fairly sure some kind of analysis would only be beneficial and I'd like to have a go myself with an independent (if such a thing exists in the retail world). If you're open to the idea, have it done and try the resulting suggestion for a set period of time then judge its worth for yourself.

I suspect that a ball fitting will be better than choosing the yellow ZStar on the basis that it annoys many single figure handicappers! Oh how I warm to their standard cry "2 shot penalty for using that". Although - having used it, I do actually like the ball a lot being a bit less "spinny" and more durable than a pro V.

All reasonable points S_R. I doubt it's that good science though esp. as the Summer temperatures this year have been anywhere but within a reliable range....unless you mean reliably low that is.

Just out of interest, I'd be fascinated after, say, another 10-15 years to see if the average handicap in the U.K. has altered for the better one iota cf. what it is now. With all this fitting going on coupled with the modern gear, you'd certainly hope to see an improvement. Somehow I doubt it and those wearing the smug grins will the OEMs and the fitters.

Balls. They make a difference. That can easily be determined by trying a few out for a few rounds at a time (to level out temporary form glitches), and then sticking with the one you like best and that seems to give the best results. Paying a £10 to short cut that AND get your £10 back if you buy some balls (which are a consumable item and don't have a shelf-life) seems like a good idea to me.

It would be funny if the best ball for you was a Pinnacle!
Think of all that money you would save.
£10 well invested IMO.

Navy, my opinion is that the average handicap has stayed the same due to a chronic lack of course management by your average player.
Pound to a penny that most golfers don't consider the risk of any shot and simply go for distance off the tee.

I don't think any amount of technology can counteract a golfers inate stupidity or lack of common sense

super_realist wrote:Navy, my opinion is that the average handicap has stayed the same due to a chronic lack of course management by your average player.
Pound to a penny that most golfers don't consider the risk of any shot and simply go for distance off the tee.

I don't think any amount of technology can counteract a golfers inate stupidity or lack of common sense

I know this is true - I've recently started playing for my club in an inter-club matchply competiton. I've noticed I've actually shot really good stroke scores. The risk of the shots are the same, but the consequences aren't so I'm paying more attention and making better choices.

I reckon I could take at least five shots off a 16 handicappers score per round by just asking them to look at the shot they are about to play.

In many cases you don't have to improve your golf technique to improve as a golfer, just make better decisions.

super_realist wrote:Navy, my opinion is that the average handicap has stayed the same due to a chronic lack of course management by your average player.
Pound to a penny that most golfers don't consider the risk of any shot and simply go for distance off the tee.

I don't think any amount of technology can counteract a golfers inate stupidity or lack of common sense

Now that I do agree with!

This point about the average handicap not coming down despite the technology has been made numerous times on here. Has the following been considered?

Handicaps are adjusted according to scores relative to CSS. CSS is determined by the average performance of the entire field (this is a generalisation, I know the formula is complex and centres on cat 1 players but the point remains). Therefore, if that average has improved over the years, it won't be reflected in individual handicaps.

Just a thought that occurred to me, but worth thinking about?

I know my course management is often appalling round my home track, because "I know it" (or I think I do). Whenever things go wrong they are going double/treble or worse on a hole, which I don't have the shots to recover from.

As the theory is getting it round in as few shots as possible, I should place emphasis on how to get round most efficiently. But, on an equal number of occasions I derive enjoyment from being out in the fresh air and (occasional) sunshine, just having a thrash, enjoying the banter and not focussing on the score.

It kind of depends on my mood on the day as to whether I enjoy plotting for 3 1/2 hours and enjoying the score (when it goes well) or whether I've had a tough week and just want a laugh and a few beers after. I genuinely derive as much enjoyment from both at different times.

Those that plot may laugh at those that are hacking round wildly while those that hack round laugh at how seriously some people take it. To me, that's part of why it's such a good game.

SmithersJones wrote:This point about the average handicap not coming down despite the technology has been made numerous times on here. Has the following been considered?

Handicaps are adjusted according to scores relative to CSS. CSS is determined by the average performance of the entire field (this is a generalisation, I know the formula is complex and centres on cat 1 players but the point remains). Therefore, if that average has improved over the years, it won't be reflected in individual handicaps.

Just a thought that occurred to me, but worth thinking about?

i dont think that CSS has moved considerably either though

I dont think your average tennis player, footballer or cricketer has improved as a result of technology either though.

ABility is the most important thing, and in golf especially, people just turn up and play and don't practice, and if they do practice, it's not the things which will lower their score like putting and chipping.

Would be interested to see the results.

For £10 I think it's a bargian just for the 45 min session. I would worry that they would pin me to a really expensive ball that I would then feel obliged to buy. I normally get my golf balls off e bay for around £15 but the way the rough is at my local course at the moment I have been flying through balls pretty fast this year compared to the usual.

Lost 5 balls in my last round. It was pretty much a case of in the rough and the ball was gone!

With regard to handicaps I read in Dave Pelz's short game book that even with the improvement in technology the average handicap has stayed the same for the last 30 years.

Mine has dropped dramatically in the last few years as i've had a few lessons and improved my decision making but then I still see some of my friends making the same mistakes over and over again. Even when I sometimes query shots and ask about course management with my little brother he isn't interested and just goes for the hollywood shot everytime despite him never pulling it off.

Well that was £10 very well spent. Really enjoyed being on trackman and the detail these guys went into about the importance of the right ball was quite fascinating.

They had me hitting balls with driver, 6 iron and PW. They measured spin rate, launch angle, height of ball flight and angle of descent to help maximise roll on drives but also the get good stop on short shots.

Very quickly ruled out any premium rate ball, as the spin rate I was getting was far to high, launch angle to low and ball flight was not high enough.
This is something the chap doing the fitting stated is not uncommon but golfers persist with them and they are what's advertised as "the best".

Went through the mid-range balls with some good results the best of which being the TM RBZ and the Callaway Diablo Tour. Both felt quite nice and I've never tried either of those before.

The biggest surprise was finding out what my best suited ball was and the price of it. The best results I got, distance, spin, and statwise was the Bridgestone xFIXx. Which is a whopping £19.99 per dozen! That's a tenner cheaper than what I usually buy.

I've got the trackman sheet in my car but gotta go into work now so will post the data this evening, once I figure out how to put a table on here. One figure that sticks out though is the height of ball of the Pro-v1 v's the xFIXx on the drivers. Best height I got on the Pro-v1 was 79feet which compared to the xFIXx at 114feet meant the hang time I got with the titlesit would have killed my game especially with high spin.

So I've purchased 2 dozen Bridgestone xFIXx and had 45 mins on trackman for a total of £40. Which effectively as that's the price of 2 dozen balls means trackman was free.

So OP to your comment about being dumb and how they'd suggest the most expensive ball, I'm afraid sir you were wrong. In fact whilst I was there not 1 premium rate ball was suggested to buyers.

Also he did suggest a ball for me for Winter, he recommended the Callaway War Bird as an alternative, he said it would keep my distance not to far off summer length, though some feel maybe sacrificed around the greens, but on wet winter greens shouldn't be an issue.

Imo money well spent and complete honesty from the fitters. Once I get home I'll try put up the results

Was this at your local club or a retailer?

Sounded like a really worthwhile trip. Would be interested in my results. I've read from people like Hank Haney who said the pro v 1 is the best ball for everyone regardless of ability which is clearly claptrap after seeing Faders results with the premium balls.

Conehead wrote:Was this at your local club or a retailer?

Sounded like a really worthwhile trip. Would be interested in my results. I've read from people like Hank Haney who said the pro v 1 is the best ball for everyone regardless of ability which is clearly claptrap after seeing Faders results with the premium balls.

It wasn't at my club, but at one fairly local to me that has a good range. They do alsorts of demo days there, the next one they have is next Tuesday for Callaway fitting but i'm happy with my clubs so i'll give that on a miss.

Couldn't be happier with the results though, and now firmly believe that one ball does not suit all.

If dmd's are not playing real golf, i hate to think what the game played after using trackman is!!! It is NOT GOLF.

McLaren wrote:If dmd's are not playing real golf, i hate to think what the game played after using trackman is!!! It is NOT GOLF.

Mac will you shut up. of course it's golf tackman doesn't hit the ball for you does it.

Fader, must admit that I've never heard of a custom ball fitting but it makes sense. Most people (especially better players) automatically go for premium balls when it's debatable whether they have the swing speed to make these balls 'work'.

Could you tell me where you went for this fitting as I'd be interested in arranging one.

Thanks.

Fader

My concern here is that the ball that has been suggested is all about long game. What about the pitching, chipping and putting which is the business end of things. There always is a trade-off between control close in and optimum distance.

I've never had a custom ball fitting. I find that a pair of Bjorn Borg trunks will generally fit me just fine "off the peg".

Fader - Bargain if you become happy playing with the suggested balls.

£10 a box better off, and a go on trackman for nowt having bought some balls.

Sack work off and go for a knock, today is clearly a good day.

golfermartin wrote:Fader

My concern here is that the ball that has been suggested is all about long game. What about the pitching, chipping and putting which is the business end of things. There always is a trade-off between control close in and optimum distance.

GM As i said they had me hitting driver for long game. 6 iron for mid range control and PW to assess spin rate and see how the ball reacts coming in at height for short game control.


I had a putt afterwards and the balls felt perfectly fine, and after all need the long game right to get close enough for the short game to count.

Humpy D the course was kingshill they did the fitting this morning in their teaching bays. The guy said the at ball fitting their doing is down on the coast then back round this way in 3 months at a range in Orpington.

Roller. My sentiments exactly, however i'm already sat at work....

Fader - Ditto

Our golf week this week and was invited to make up a 4 teeing off right about now. Off for 2 weeks after today so have to stay here to hand over all the work this afternoon. Gutted, first nice day for a while too.

Sounds interesting Fader. If you can do it, I'd be really curious to see the Trackman data for the xFixx and what it looked like in comparison to some of the 'premium' balls.

Navy i'm on the late shift today, so i'll try get it up on here tonight with the results of the test and comparison to premium balls. If I don't manage it tonight i'll get it up on my day off tomorrow, makes for interesting reading.

Thanks for that Fader, I hoped it'd be as you describe, that's exactly what I'm looking for. I play prov1x at the moment because I definitely get too much spin with the standard prov1. I do like the spin I can generate around the greens with them, but if changing to a different type of ball means I hit more greens then that's something I'd be happy to sacrifice. I just need some hard evidence to persuade me!

It sounds like the chap doing this isn't based at Kings Hill - do you have his name, and I can perhaps find out if he's going to be anywhere near me at any time (I'm over the river in Essex)?

Smithers, in all honesty I know the guys name that did mine was Daryl. I believe their based in Oxfordshire i'll see if I can get the full name of the fitting centre their from, as I literally booked it on the fly from an add at my driving range. I'll pop in there and get the contact details for you over the weekend.

Right here's my results only posting the xFIXx (my new fitted ball) v's Pro V1, as I'd be here all day inputting the data from every ball I used. Is just so you get an idea. (All distances were carry only according to trackman)

Pro V1

Driver:
Spin: 3251
Distance (yds):238.3
Launch Angle: 12.2
Height (ft): 79.8
Descent Angle:30.7

6 iron:
Spin:6317
Distance (yds): 156
Launch Angle: 19.1
Height (ft): 112.8
Descent Angle: 49.7

PW:
Spin: 9105
Distance (yds):117
Launch Angle: 26.9
Height (ft): 116.2
Descent Angle:53.6

Conclusion was getting high spin rates with poor launch angles which meant a massive loss of distance and no real control on shorter shorts. Even with the high spin rate on short irons because the launch + descent angles were poor it meant I wasn't really getting much stop on my approach shots.


Bridgestone xFIXx

Driver:
Spin: 2109
Distance (yds):259.1
Launch Angle: 16.2
Height (ft): 114.8
Descent Angle:39.7

6 iron:
Spin: 5731
Distance (yds): 176.3
Launch Angle: 20.6
Height (ft): 129.3
Descent Angle: 52.6

PW:
Spin: 8569
Distance (yds):132.3
Launch Angle: 29.7
Height (ft): 148.4
Descent Angle:61.6



Conclusion was massively lower spin rates did mean a huge gulf in the distance I hit my driver, over 20yards in fact but the better launch angle gave me better air time. It also felt better to me off the face of the driver. Also even though lower spin rates on the 6iron and PW compared to the Pro V1, I got better control from the ball because the launch angle gave me more height and made the descent angle better to create less roll.

The day wasn't about what I could hit furthest, I wanted to get a ball to help me score better. I don't often use a driver anyway as I like to play my 3wood for position, so knowing I go a ball that help with control into greens with mid and short irons was key for me. The fact it also added some yards was a bonus.

I was using the Srixon AD333 and the results for that sat pretty much in the middle of those above. But am happy I did it and going to stick with what's been recommended.


EDIT: having hit my new ball I don't feel like I lost any feel with the irons, but moment of truth the eclectic round today.