Ballnamic

[Arlin964]

1 hour ago, Longdriver295 said:

It's odd how many people has said CSX is the first choice form ballnamic. It makes me wonder. Anyway I did not like the CSX from the get go, It was short for my irons. Driver distance was no more than the Vice and Maxfli Tour. So I have now come to the conclusion that Vice and Maxfli are very good Balls for a fraction of the cost over top brands. Vice is really a very good ball and hard to beat, I will save those $$ to pay for a round of golf and I will likely be playing Vice exclusively.

It is funny, CSX was in my top 3 each time I’ve done it too. 

[DLBTide7]

1. Srixon XV

2. Snell MTB Black 

3. Bridgestone B X 

 

Results from Ballnamic fitting at Ping’s Proving Grounds in Phoenix 

 

I know a Ping and Titleist (ball) PGA TOUR pro staffer. He did the Ballnamic fitting and Bridgestone B X was his recommended ball.  He started working with Titleist and went back to the ‘19 ball Pro V1 ball. Gained 1/2 club with his irons. 

[bcflyguy1]

The Tour BX must have really performed well in all Ping's testing because it was the top recommendation for me and my 69 year old Dad. We have different launch conditions throughout the bag, to say the least.

Ballnamic is just a jumping off point in the search for the best ball for any given player. It is going to swing and miss on occasion, and they say it in the fine print caveats.

The top choices it threw out for me were Tour BX, CSX, Z Star XV, Snell MTB X, and Pro V1X. No shocks there at all. Seemed that what set the BX apart from the pack was its ability to mitigate fliers, which is a big deal for me playing often in dewy bermuda.

Edited November 22, 2022 by bcflyguy1

[hammergolf]

5 hours ago, bcflyguy1 said:

The Tour BX must have really performed well in all Ping's testing because it was the top recommendation for me and my 69 year old Dad. We have different launch conditions throughout the bag, to say the least.

Ballnamic is just a jumping off point in the search for the best ball for any given player. It is going to swing and miss on occasion, and they say it in the fine print caveats.

The top choices it threw out for me were Tour BX, CSX, Z Star XV, Snell MTB X, and Pro V1X. No shocks there at all. Seemed that what set the BX apart from the pack was its ability to mitigate fliers, which is a big deal for me playing often in dewy bermuda.

It’s a really good ball and what I’ve played for 2+ years. It seems like for most Balnamic fittings I’ve read about has Tour BX and CS X as the top 2 performing balls.

[Longdriver295]

10 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

It’s a really good ball and what I’ve played for 2+ years. It seems like for most Balnamic fittings I’ve read about has Tour BX and CS X as the top 2 performing balls.

And because Those 2 balls are top 2 balls recommended 90% of the time is enough to tell you something. It's not worth paying the money to even do JMO

[hammergolf]

1 minute ago, Longdriver295 said:

And because Those 2 balls are top 2 balls recommended 90% of the time is enough to tell you something. It's not worth paying the money to even do JMO

Or, maybe because it’s the best impartial ball test that’s ever been done, and those two balls truly perform better than others…. It’s advice, free advice at that. Take it for what you will. 

[Longdriver295]

1 minute ago, hammergolf said:

Or, maybe because it’s the best impartial ball test that’s ever been done, and those two balls truly perform better than others…. It’s advice, free advice at that. Take it for what you will. 

How is it "Free" advice?? You have to pay to do it.

[hammergolf]

5 minutes ago, Longdriver295 said:

How is it "Free" advice?? You have to pay to do it.

I’m not sure any advice to adjust your clubs or change balls to improve your game matters if you’re not willing to invest $39 to get an accurate, impartial ball fitting. I give, you win. Good luck with your quest.

[Longdriver295]

13 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

I’m not sure any advice to adjust your clubs or change balls to improve your game matters if you’re not willing to invest $39 to get an accurate, impartial ball fitting. I give, you win. Good luck with your quest.

I'm just saying if you have to pay 39 then it's Not "Free" 

[TheGolfingRealtor]

When is the best time to use this for a ball fitting? It's winter here but I've been doing Trackman sessions indoors. 

 

How accurate do I have to be with my launch and spin #'s if I am working on swing mechanics? Different days can produce different results.
 

Should I do a 7 iron and driver session to get some numbers?

 

Why do you have to do five fittings within 10 days? What is the benefit of that?

 

[jjfcpa]

Watched the review of the Ping Balsamic fitting process on TXG and decided it might be worth the money just to see if I am completely playing the wrong ball.  I tried to be as honest as possible (call it conservative as possible) when it came to my abilities and preferences.  What all is said and done, it recommended... wait for it.   The Callaway Chrome Soft, which is the ball I have been playing all year.  I did some major testing of balls starting in the Spring of 2022 and convinced myself that the CS just performed really well for me.  

 

The 2nd ball it recommended was the Taylormade AVX... no surprise, it was the most recent ball that I compared the CS to and decided that the CS just performed a little better.

[awtryau89]

You have to be honest on your numbers for sure but the biggest factors in Ballnamic are wind performance and green side spin. Switch those up and you’ll see the biggest difference in your selections. 

[Fairways_and_Greens]

21 hours ago, jjfcpa said:

Watched the review of the Ping Balsamic fitting process on TXG and decided it might be worth the money just to see if I am completely playing the wrong ball.  I tried to be as honest as possible (call it conservative as possible) when it came to my abilities and preferences.  What all is said and done, it recommended... wait for it.   The Callaway Chrome Soft, which is the ball I have been playing all year.  I did some major testing of balls starting in the Spring of 2022 and convinced myself that the CS just performed really well for me.  

 

The 2nd ball it recommended was the Taylormade AVX... no surprise, it was the most recent ball that I compared the CS to and decided that the CS just performed a little better.

Same. I plan on doing it when the 2023 balls are in there. 

[Fairways_and_Greens]

10 hours ago, awtryau89 said:

You have to be honest on your numbers for sure but the biggest factors in Ballnamic are wind performance and green side spin. Switch those up and you’ll see the biggest difference in your selections. 

You’re right. The lift/drag seems to make a big difference. 

[DJ07]

On 11/24/2022 at 3:52 PM, jjfcpa said:

Watched the review of the Ping Balsamic fitting process on TXG and decided it might be worth the money just to see if I am completely playing the wrong ball.  I tried to be as honest as possible (call it conservative as possible) when it came to my abilities and preferences.  What all is said and done, it recommended... wait for it.   The Callaway Chrome Soft, which is the ball I have been playing all year.  I did some major testing of balls starting in the Spring of 2022 and convinced myself that the CS just performed really well for me.  

 

The 2nd ball it recommended was the Taylormade AVX... no surprise, it was the most recent ball that I compared the CS to and decided that the CS just performed a little better.

I had done it a while back when it first launched, did it again after trying various balls it had recommended and others I had wanted to try, and did it again after the TXG video last week. Every time I have done it, like others have said, it recommends me to use the Chrome Soft X or Tour BX. I had used both on and off for a while, but neither really wowed me. Instead, I always default back to the ProV1. I have always found the ProV1 to be an absolutely perfect middle of the range ball: not the softest or firmest, not the spinniest or super low spin, not the highest or lowest flying, but the ProV1 is always consistent for me. I know how it will perform on each shot I hit, even my mishits, so I value its consistency and managing my expectations. 

 

I eventually wanted a ball with a bit more spin on my chip shots, and I did some experimenting with the Tour BXS and the TP5. I liked the BXS, but found it (like the rest of my game) to be inconsistent in terms of spin and performance. I also liked the TP5, especially around the green, but I had begun to notice that I was struggling with my long game and that the ball would balloon up or drift off target from the spin. I went back into Ballnamic and used the numbers from my most recent fitting to see what the top result was. Again, the Chrome Soft X was #1, but the BXS was surprisingly #2.

 

I then looked at my Arccos data since I had alternated between the Chrome Soft X and BXS for about a 2-month stretch and had numerous rounds with all the balls to generate a representative sample. I found I had a significant advantage in strokes gained (compared to my target handicap of 5) while using the Chrome Soft X compared to any of the other balls (BXS, TP5, ProV1). As it is heading into the winter months, I have taken some lessons to know what to work on, evaluated my game, and am working to tune myself up for the spring. I plan to get out put the Chrome Soft X in play to see if the results hold that it is the best ball for me.

 

As a side note, the a wild stat I found from my Arccos data is that I had almost 1.5 SG putting when using the Chrome Soft X. I had bought the triple track to try it out and felt it was helpful but not anything revolutionary. I stand corrected as it appears to be doing a decent job for me!

[K48]

 

[zap311]

If anyone wants to geek out on Ballnamic and the inner-workings of their model, check out the most recent episode of The Sweet Spot podcast with the Ping Ballnamic guys. It’s an extremely insightful and fun listen. 

[pgheaja]

I used the ball fitting tool recently, mostly playing the Vice Pro this past year.  My driver swing speed is right around 100 mph.  It recommended in order AVX, BX and CSX LS.  My trajectory off the tee was high with the Vice ball and the tool recommended lower launching balls.  I think it's a great starting point to get a short list of balls to test. 

[loc]

You have to pay a fee for Ballnamic?

[stevegp]

Yes. It costs $40.

[Minarets]

I keep thinking of doing this.  

[ReidE5]

21 hours ago, Minarets said:

I keep thinking of doing this.  

Go through the steps of the "fitting"... then when it asks you to pay and tells you what you could be missing out on, judge if its worth it to you based on what they tease about the results...  it will say something like "you could be getting 10 more yards out of your 7 iron" based on these results etc...

 

I did it and kind of regret it because I was already playing a ball that suited me pretty well.  Its always fun to see what that kind of system comes up with though so its all good. 

[stevegp]

Only you can decide if it is worth the cost.

 

The way I look at it is that golf is a sport that I truly enjoy. I have a significant amount of money invested in clubs that fit me and my game. Receiving objective feedback on which golf balls are recommended for me to play based on the shot data and preferences I have submitted is, to me, well worth the investment.

[KnoxvilleReb]

Has anyone been recommended any of the ProV1’s? I find it interesting that the commonly accepted “best ball” is almost never recommended by Ballnamic. Maybe that will change when they upload the 2023 version this week.

[ReidE5]

1 hour ago, KnoxvilleReb said:

Has anyone been recommended any of the ProV1’s? I find it interesting that the commonly accepted “best ball” is almost never recommended by Ballnamic. Maybe that will change when they upload the 2023 version this week.

It recommended the prov1X #1 for me in the same list as chrome soft x, zstar diamond,  and wilson staff.  Have since switched to using Prov1X and Snell MTB-X and loving them.

[cormierj1]

It recommended ProV1 and AVX as my top choices. 

[DLiver]

The Sweet Spot podcast with the Ballnamic guys is extremely interesting. I would highly recommend it for anyone thinking about using the service. It will provide background for how your inputs will affect your results.

 

The library section on the Ballnamic site also has a bunch of interesting (and brief) articles on each of the factors that affect ball performance.

[buckI]

Just received an email that some of the 23 releases including Pro V1 and Pro V1x are now in the database.   Interested to see the results.

[Townes]

For the OP and some of the "I bought a sleve and decided" guys. How did you decide if you liked the recos?

 

Feel, or did you do a lot of LM work to see the real differences?

[Longdriver295]

24 minutes ago, Townes said:

For the OP and some of the "I bought a sleve and decided" guys. How did you decide if you liked the recos?

 

Feel, or did you do a lot of LM work to see the real differences?

To be honest none of the Balls recommended to me was really as good for me as other balls. I'm playing the Z Star XV right now which is a Very Good Ball for my game, and that ball was never in my Ballnamic list