Exactice808, on 06 June 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:
darnoldil, on 05 June 2016 - 06:45 PM, said:
I agree that expressing opinion is a good thing, and I also wrote that the OP's attempted work was a good thing as well. What I was writing to had nothing to do with anyone's belief about golf balls. My concern was with the OP's insistence that his experiment was both proof positive of his opinion, and that it was generalizable in it applicability. When other people spoke of their opinions to the contrary the OP referrenced his experiment's results as proof that contrarian opinions were mute. Those two points were the only issues that I wrote to. I also agree with you that research is difficult work. Furthermore, I agree with you that we may not be able to construct such an encompassing experiment to begin with. However, what we do seem to be getting here is that some people are more or less affected by differences in balls than others, or they at least reason that this could be the case.
So to the point of a potential experiment:
Potential variables for consideration:
- Spin (Side, Back)
- Feel (Compression, Construction, Materials)
- Condtions (Course/Hole Layout, Fairway/Green Firmness, Penalty Constructs, Distance)
- Player (Shot Shape, Consistency, Typical Miss Shot Shape, Short Game Prowes)
A) What effects do side and back spin have on accuracy and distance?
B) What effects can/do conditions have upon the exaggeration of side and back spin?
C) Can combinations of side and back spin and course conditions impair different player's ability to adjust to balls that have more or less types of spin?
D) What constitutes a negative scoring impact?
E) How would standardization with a player's control ball be kept over time for possible scoring deviations between side spin and back spin category balls?
F) Does course familiarity impact a player's ability to adapt to the selected side spin and back spin balls, and if so to what degree does it impact scoring differentials?
G) Is there a difference in score between playing the different spin balls vs the player's standard ball on different holes within the round?
H) Will there be a difference in scoring for each ball when playing multiple balls (with random order) from each category per hole?
I) Are we measuring player adaptive capacity instead of ball differentiation characteristic impact?
Potential Experiment Parameters:
1) Differentiating Player types based upon degree of shot shape. This would require determining minimum and maximum values of typical deviation from target.
2) Determining ball type categories for minimum and maximum side spin values, and separately, for backspin values (yes balls may blend these two).
3) Creating Course Layout impacts on scoring per shot shape categories (which tracks more heavily penalize slice vs hooks).
4) Categorizing course layout impacts on both distance and green receptivity.
5) Determining environmental categorization constructs for weather, course, and time impacts (these are some of the external validity points that would exist).
6) Determining representative balls for each category of side spin and back spin.
7) Creating Std Deviation reference platforms of each player's standard ball in relationship to the side spin and back spin reference balls.
8) Drafting course rotation schedules (alternate between standard ball round at one course with high side spin ball at another, then the low side spin ball representative at another course, etc, etc, etc, until one round with each ball has been played in a scrambled way).
This above only represents a possible foundation for constructing a more generalizable experiment
I know what you meant, The point of bringing in a full scientific thesis to this topic, is just plane overboard.
By dissecting's OP post, we can find every flaw in the way a test was done including 99.99999% of all "said test on Golf WRX". But the point that the OP was expressing and I say "POINT" not scientifically, flux-capacitor, 121 jiggawatts test that was conducted. Was that at a mortal level at a normal round of golf, The ball does not really matter.
Yes yes, we can do all that test... feel free to do so and take the time out, but I personally feel, it wont matter.
a higher spinning ball, personally is that 1 benefit..... more spin, other than that......Again you have to have greens that are receptive to the increased spin and the actual skill to manipulate the spin on command.
If you have neither, then the shot consistency that will ALWAYS occur is a roll out and thus players should adapt to that roll out until, they either play greens that are impossible to hold and or they develop a skill to manipulate a golf ball.
I appreciate your point, however you only site one variable which is backspin, and further, you only site one application of backspin which is in "holding greens". The reality is that backspin can affect distance, even for the average player as well. Also, side spin will affect deviation from the target line, and THAT can affect just how much "Army golf" a person is playing. It can also significantly impact a player's score depending upon course layout and OB. Remember, Bridgestone DOES market a ball that they tout as having less side spin in order to cut down on slices (what the majority of right hand golfer's do) and hooks, with the expressed point that it will help you to SCORE better. LOL
Regarding the "dissection" of the OP's experiment NOT needing to be done: my point was that it DID need some review for the claims that he was making regarding it's applicability to all but the super small minority of pro golfer's. There are a number of people who not only disagree with the OP's findings, but THEY have experienced for themselves, and or seen others experience that the ball CAN and DOES make a difference. The OP strongly inferred and basically wrote that HIS testing PROVES that they are wrong. Thus, since the OP wanted to have his experiment hold as proof that his hypothesis applies to just about everyone else it made it fair game to examine it from a scientific research methodology perspective.
Just take a moment to think about it please. When the OP did his "experiment" what balls did he use? How close were the characteristics of those balls to his own in both side spin and back spin? How did he "rotate" the balls; was it between holes or rounds? Did the OP ever question or realize how good HE may actually be, in the sense that he may not put any significant side spin on his shots unless he WANTS to? If that's the case then the OP effectively confined the test to more of a "distance" test, where he primarily only had to adjust for the roll out that you speak of. Taking that one step further, if he played on greens that were not very firm, or that had large amounts of run out area, and or that were not sloped, then the OP REALLY took even the green holding factor out of the test, thereby further narrowing it to a "distance" ADJUST ABILITY test. In fact, the whole test may have been measuring how well the OP could adjust to a ball's characteristics, instead of how much those characteristics, left unchecked, would have impacted his scores. Then the OP's conclusions ASSUME that everyone else could make the same adjustments, and thus charges them to be as adaptable as he may be. In other words, the OP may not, and probably did not, measure what he intended to measure, and that means the test wasn't internally valid; let alone generalize-able to the vast amount of golfers.
The point of the OP, and it seems based upon what you have just written, yourself included, is that the ball doesn't matter: primarily it seems, due to the ability of people to adjust to any differences in ball characteristics that may exits, or because the differences simply do not make enough of a difference to negatively impact anyone. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What people aren't entitled to is to create an "experiment" that isn't well constructed according to even basic research methodology principles, and then say that their test "proves" that they were right and anyone else that thinks and or experiences anything differently is simply wrong. In my opinion, doing THAT is going overboard; using voodoo science and telling everyone that they simply must accept your conclusions because they are "scientific" when they aren't.
Look, there are very serious flaws on a basic level here with the construction of the OP's tests if he is going to generalize it to the overwhelming majority of golfers; it's not nitpicking. Trying to discount these flaws as being insignificant or overburdening as a way of ignoring that the OP's experiment ISN'T as applicable as he, and others may want it to be doesn't make sense. Why? Because we all have the right to use whatever ball we want to, and we all know what we do on the course and can/have tried things (including different balls) to help us with our own individual idiosyncrasies.
Furthermore, we all know that for SOME "X" % of golfers the ball doesn't matter. We can also hypothesize that for SOME "Y" % of golfers the ball will have less of an impact on their scores then the "Z" golfers. We can even Hypothesize that the "A" golfers, the very few that they are, maybe would experience a significant impact to their scores with different ball characteristics. However, to say that the ONLY group that would experience an impact in their scores based upon ball characteristics are the type "A" golfers, because those people are "good", and thus everyone else just needs to forget about it because the OP's tests proved they are all wrong and just deluding themselves??? Well, that simply doesn't work. Therefore the OP doesn't get a pass when he wants to tell everyone else that they are delusional because he and his experiment say so.
Now with that written, there really isn't anything else to be said; it's all been laid out by all of the posters on this thread. When you look at it all, we see that there ARE NON-low to + handicap players that DO believe/find that differences in ball characteristics can impact their scores. We also see that others believe/find that ball characteristics can not only impact their scores, but do so to an extent that they struggle to adapt well enough to the differences to negate them. And still others believe/find that they/golfer's in general, are able to adapt, or even find no disconcerting differences that would significantly impact their scores.
And THAT'S what I think we can all take away from this: The fact that a golf ball's characteristics May, or May Not impact YOU. Therefore you have to try it for yourself and see, instead of simply accepting someone's belief/logic that it will or it won't.