low compression golf balls

I recently started using the bridgestone treosoft ball and i have a swing sweed of 112-115 and was wondering how the lower compression of the ball will work with a higher swing speed. or if there will be no difference at all, i have tried looking it up but cant find any answers. and by the way i really like this ball, all other balls i need to replace after almost every wedge shots from the grooves but these hold up rather well and have alot more spin than i thought they would.

I don't understand compression at all. I've hit balls that were listed at 75 compression, and balls that were listed at 100 compression that went just at far.

I say, if you like the ball, play it.

I'm with this guy...i dont see enough strokes come off my game by playing $50/doz balls to warrant paying 5x as much as the balls i play regularly

Not saying its the balls fault, i'm sure they work as advertized but i surely cannot tell the difference on 99% of shots...

Spin is going to increase a lot off the driver as well as iron shots. Think about it, compression, the ball is getting squashed basically at impact. With a lower compression ball and a higher SS it may compress too much. Same is if a 90mph. SS guy tries to play a Prov1X, he's not going to compress it enough and also not get enough spin.

I'm wondering what balls will be like in the next few years with the groove changes. I think you'll see a lot more balls playing like a Nike One Platinum, very high spin, to make up for spin lost with the grooves. Then, the driver heads will be even lower spin to make up for it. If that happens, then distances will drop dramatically on the tour. These guys are really going to have a tough time playing these super long courses. I read a really cool article on Tiger's swing/ball/launch ect. yesterday. He has the highest avg. swingspeed on the tour and 3rd from dead last worst SS to distance ratio. IMO, he will become ridiculously dominant again when they start messing with the grooves and balls because of it. He's already been playing a ball that is robbing him of a ton of distance.

If you swing fast enough into a low compression ball, strange things happen with the ball flight.

A ball has optimum compression, we'll assume it to be X for intents and purposes here.

You WANT to reach X, and depending on your swing, you need a different resistance in the ball to reach that optimum, X. X is probably a few millimeters, and it's what you see on swing-visions when the ball compresses.

If you fail to compress the ball enough (like a slow swinger using a high-compression ball), you will lose some distance, but the major difference will be that the ball feels hard. You will also not be able to produce as much spin on the ball, since the ball did not flatten as much against the club and engage in the optimum amount of friction. This will give you longer rollout though, which is why the total distance loss is not severe.

If you OVER-compress the ball, you get STRANGE shots. The ball will lose a lot of energy due to the poor transfer and over-compression. The ball basically flattens TOO much. It may rebound in strange ways, depending on the balance of the ball itself. This ball will also spin wildly, and often come up significantly short.

See the thread about the wilson 50/50. Several people cite very peculiar shots. An 80-110 compression ball is going to be okay for almost everyone. A super-fast swing will see some benefit from a very high compression ball, and a slow swing will see some minor improvement from something like the 50/50 or the noodle. They WILL hit the ball farther with a low compression ball, and it'll feel much better.

The 50/50 and the NOODLE are both quite low in compression.

Maxfli Tour Fire is actually low, coming in around 75.

Tour Fire is a great bargain now, on clearance at Dick's for 14.97 a dozen. It's moderately low compression 3-piece ball. The pre-cursor to the B330-RX, really.

If you are going to try a low compression ball, I would side with the Maxfli Tour Fire, and this is not because I use, love and always praise the ball. I think it is likely a big part of the reason I initially liked the ball, and why I think I like the ball so much that I would recommend the ball for what you mention. It is what Silver just mentioned in that it has a 75 compression rating.

I think for your swing speed you would be seriously limiting your ability by not using a 3 or 4 piece golf ball. From most that I have seen, low compression golf balls are usually fairly synonymous with 2 piece balls. I think the Tour Fire is one of the lowest compression 3 or 4 piece balls I have seen. Because I like lower compression and softer feeling golf balls, I really like the Tour Fire. Which I came to my conclusion prior to even knowing it was a lower compression ball.

Although to be real honest, logic would tell me that with you SS going to a lower compression ball may come at a loss of distance. Just based on my knowledge and experience with what I have tried while playing off both sides of the speed spectrum. I now would likely benefit from a 2 piece ball because my swing has slowed down and I don't know if I really benefit from a 3 piece ball. I do know that I play better with the Tour Fire than most of the 2 or 3 piece balls I have used. Also at the top of my list is the ProV1, and I despise the ProV1x which comes as little surprise to me because the Pro V1 has a fairly low compression rating for a 3 piece ball at around 80.

That being said, I am not sure it come as a serious detriment to your game, as many of the pros with similar swing speeds play the ball on the tour. However I would believe it would be a big mistake to go to a 2-piece ball for the sake of getting a lower compression ball. I think the design of a 3-4 piece would be more important than the compression rating. While the use of a lower compression ball may come at a loss of distance for someone with a high SS, that really only matters if you put a dividend on distance. Never heard research document what it would do for your consistency. So if you find a low compression ball, that is still 3 piece and you like it, I would say go for it, I know at least for my game the feel of the ball is tops in my book. I also know that based on experience, that even though the cover comes into play as well, the the feel I inherently like is mostly apparent in lower compression golf balls.

I have seen over the course of the last 6 months this same deal has been mentioned numerous times, yet when I go to either of the Dicks in Madison those damn balls are always $22-25 a box.

does anyone know what the compression rating is for the treosoft, i have been looking and cant find it anywhere and all i can find is that is a soft gradational compression and i have no idea what that means. I have only played 2 rounds with the ball and both were windy days and mid 40's temp but i didnt seem to lose any distance. I dont mind playing expensive balls but i have never been a fan of the prov's, i like a ball to release on chip shots and i could never seem to predict how much they would check and it always cost me a few strokes a round. I played the bridgestone e5+ last year and also was playing the top flite gamer at the end of the year but had problems with cutting the balls whenever i would hit wedge shots, and also have the same problem with the prov's

Tiger and Bubba have the same clubhead speed; Bubba averages 50 yards more than tiger.

High launch, low spin. Bubba's launch angle is almost 16*, but he hits knuckleballs.

Tiger's launch is 11.X, with reasonable spin.

That distance ratio is specifically because Tiger demands a ball that spins like crazy at the expense of distance. Tiger really doesn't care at all about losing a little distance off the tee. He cares way more about being able to stop the ball on the green.

I look at balls the same way. With any ball you give me I'm probably going to out-drive 99% of golfers on distance. I don't really care about that....I just want a ball that I can stop on the green.

It means the core gets firmer the more it is compressed, i.e it gets harder the closer you get to the center of the ball. This actually makes a lot of sense since the ball will feel softer on less than full or slow swing speed shots and firmer on higher swing speed shots. I expect this is why you don't find it "too soft" even though you have a fairly high swing speed.

I like the Gamers too but also chew up the covers. I am going to have to try the Treosoft this year as I am looking for the same kind of ball you describe.

So if what i gather about compression is true(the further youy compress the ball the harder the ball needs to be) why arnt all balls this 'gradational compession core'?

Seems that if that technology exists it would be possible to make a ball or a series of balls that would fit almost all golfers.

Its obviously not manufacturing costs as the treosoft claims to have this technology yet is oneof the cheaper balls on the market. Or is this just a marketing scheme and a play on words whent a TRUE gradational core is a physical impossibility?

What about some sort of nutonian liquid core?

Golf magazine has an article this month on catching the ball on the upswing and gaining distance.

I was actually reading about this a while back and found the Precept site that has a great presentation of how golf balls work. If you go to the last page they explain the relationship between cover, core materials, multidensity cores and multilayer balls. Cools stuff and they are getting closer to a golf ball that works well for almost any golfer except at the very extreme ends of the spectrum.

The Science of Golfballs

Oh yeah, after watching the "How It's Made" video of a visit to Titleist and watching them make Pro V1's, I find it hard to believe it costs much more to make them vs. any other ball. I'm an engineer (although not a golf ball engineer :laugh and work around plastic molding production quite a bit. I would be surprised if the actual manufacturing cost differences from a company's high end ball and low end ball are more than pennies per ball. My guess is that the only cost differences are in materials and possibly some assembly cost but golf ball manufacturing is pretty much all automated.

I suspect that just like golf clubs, the major difference in cost is in the sales and marketing side and not the production/manufacturing costs themselves.

Every time I try to play the ball up and tilt my shoulders back to catch the ball on the upswing.... I hook the crap out of it!

I agree with your findings....this is the best golf ball value on the market...It will replace the Pro-V's and Srixon Z's that I used to play, this upcoming season.