Ballnamic: Terrible name, great idea?

@jon had Marty Jertson on his podcast and Marty teased this… I was excited then, and I’m excited now.

I haven’t gone through the fitting process yet… I want to go get my actual numbers with my new Srixon irons before I spend the $39 and see what it spits out… I’m definetly always looking to find “the right answer” and I think this might be a fun tool.

If you go use it, please let us know your results here! I’m very interested to see if there are any noticeable trends or takeaways.


I just used it and got the Bridgestone Tour B X as my recommendation. I actually have some at my house so I’ll be giving those a shot during a practice round (currently playing Snell MTB X).

I think it’s an interesting idea and from a very trusted source. We’ll see how it does!


Very cool! I don’t know my current driver numbers from a simulator, so I want to generate those before spending the $40…


I like data, and I’m appreciative of the idea that Ball X is better for you than Ball Y, but how much improvement are we really talking about here? Ignoring the psychological lift from being assured by a bunch of people you’ve just given money to, that this particular ball is The One for your game—which is probably big, if it allows you to thereby make a free swing and not think about it—how much change in distance, dispersion, and spin is there between Ideal Ball and Completely Wrong For Me Ball?

Or maybe it’s great for much better players than I am?

1 Like

It can be significant… I lose up to 20 yards with a Kirkland (and when I hit a slice, it’s sharper than a katana) because it spins a ton…

I’ve changed my ball to the ones from MyGolfSpy and went away from the high compression, high spin to low compression, low spin… I tend to generate a decent amount of spin, so I figured this would help me add some distance… but at my home course, roll isn’t really a thing… so the higher compression balls tend to go farther for me… though I like the iron play off the lower spin balls a little more (though I think I’ve lost distance on them too…)

Is it changing my score? I don’t think it is by any huge amount… but I’ve tried multiple balls this season looking for the “one”… if I can find a decent fit for $40, I will consider it a huge win.

If you want a cheap way to test it out, grab 2 dozen Kirkland and test them against any low spinning ball.


I’ve been using the Kirkland’s—they’re cheap!—and I noted the ‘LOLSpin!’ results from the great MyGolfSpy Ball Test. I hadn’t noticed much practical difference between them and some of the other random sleeves I’ve used (‘experienced’ ProV1s, TP Black, some Callaway middle of the road ball.). But I’ll be the first to admit I’m not good. And inconsistent as anything on the course. Though things are improving. I’ll see how this next round goes this week.

For better players, like you all, there’s a noticeable difference, it sounds. 20 yds is a big deal. So are the, “No, no! Not over there!!!” mishits.


It also depends on club head speed… I’m “tour level” speed, so spin just hurts me more… as you get more consistent, and hit the ball harder, the ball will matter more… or at least you will notice the differences more.

Whether or not it actually MATTERS is also an interesting question… I do think it makes sense to try to play one ball as much as possible, so to me it makes sense to find the “best” ball… I tend not to play found balls and stick to whatever ball I’m gaming that day / week / month… I liked the B X the most this season, I think… but I like the MTB-X price point the most.

1 Like

You raise a good point. I recently ‘upgraded’ from AD333 to TM Tour Response (I have a mid speed swing). My driving has improved in both distance and dispersion. BUT, is this down to the ball? Me having a natural improvement? Weather conditions? Psychology in that I expect an improvement? Its really hard to fins a way of proving that any one ball has an impact.

That said, when you see dispersion patterns for balls from test robots of 40 yards, you can see the benefit of avoiding those!!


I’m going to take the plunge on this once I can get some real numbers. So probably in a few weeks.

1 Like

Alright, just spent a dozen golf balls worth of money on this, so let’s talk results!

Background I like to think of myself as hitting the ball hard… I’m creeping up on 40 but trying to use Fit for Golf to keep my speed up. I’ve tried a number of different balls this year and haven’t fallen in love with anything… My driver swing is also still a work in progress… Also, my follow through with driver hits the net in the simulator. Regardless, we soldiered on…

I wanted to see a couple of things, mostly if the recommendations with my actual ball data would vary that much from my on course data. (spoiler: it did not)

Driver Data My claim: 285 total yardage, high launch, high spin. Yardage is based on GPS data from the course. Height and spin is based on playing with myself. A lot. Simulator Data: Ball Speed: 156, Spin 3,1116, Launch Angle: 12.2, Total distance 278…

7 Iron Data My Claims: 180 yard carry, high spin, high launch… Actual Data: 124 ball speed, 6,730 RPM, 22 degree Launch Angle, 172 yard carry.

So we started with the basics… I put in the numbers I play on the course and got my results, then I went back and put my numbers in…

COMPLAINT So you only get 5 fittings for $40, which is fine… but you CAN’T go back to the previous results… I assumed you could, and screwed around and while I remember the basics, I can’t go back to my “real” fitting data… this seems like a massive flaw in the system… I’d love to have the fitting results from my 5 different selections available to me, but now I’m stuck with the results from my “no flier” experiment… Were I a more detail oriented person, I would have kept track of the previous results… but here we are. Fix this PING. You have the technology. (I have an e-mail in to support, and will report back if they help)

Back to the results that I mostly remember…

I was pretty consistently fit into the Srixon Z-Star XV. It was my fit for both my on course numbers and my simulator numbers… The Snell MTB-X I used to get these numbers was a top choice, as was the Black… I don’t remember the other options. It was also suggested for my altitude ball and my “flier” prevention ball… the only time it WASN’T the top suggestion was when I demanded a lower ball flight (one tick down from the middle).

So it seems like OVERALL, my specific numbers didn’t radically change the suggestions… I’d give you the different percentage fits for the various selections, but I don’t have them anymore… whether they will remain consistent for other people is to be determined (and you have to be willing to burn 1/5 fittings to find out!)

I’m interested to try the XV, but have plenty of balls to go through first (if you’ve been reading the MGS ball test thread, I still have some MTB-X and Z-Stars to get through)… I’m a little disappointed that the $40 covers 5 simulations over 24 hours… I think it should be one or the other… I’d love to go back and do it again after improving my driver and when my new irons come in… I’m not going to spend another $40 on it, though.

I think the idea has a lot of potential, but I"m a little underwhelmed by the overall execution… I don’t really CARE how a ball feels off my putter, so I’m not sure why that’s part of my test… I don’t care about launch parameters much either… it would have been nice to have a “maximize carry” and “maximize total distance” option on the driver selection… The “workable” on the 7 iron also seems a little wonky to me… and it’s only three choices… I selected the middle option, but would have like to toyed with that as well…

My biggest takewaway is this is a VERY cool tool, but the customer experience side needs some reworking… I understand why they limit it to 5 fittings, but maybe they can reconsider that…

Overall, I think the ideal system (for me) would be to allow me to change my launch numbers 2-5 times per year, and then play with the launch settings (and altitude settings) as much as I want to see the various suggestions if I’m playing a different course or location… I think that would prevent the overall abuse they were trying to avoid while also giving the level of PING customer service they usually provide… (PING, I am available for consultation…)

I can see this being a great system for people to get fit into the right ball, but I’d love to see it become a tool where people can see how different balls play differently, and allow them to think about what they are bringing on golf trips and such…


Great review! Thanks!


No worries… i was excited to try it, and am happy I did… I’m hoping the support team allows me to review my “main” results after my email, but we will see… I didn’t dive into the options because it didn’t occur to me I could not return to them.

My biggest suggestion is: play with your options on the results screen before changing any parameters.

1 Like

Support just gave me another round and the suggestion to hit the send fitting data button.

1 Like

I’m now tempted to see what they’d fit Bryson into…

1 Like

Went back through and put my numbers in again… I don’t know what was different, but it recommended three different balls, with the Bridgestone B X being the #1… it was my favorite ball that I played this season, so I guess that’s good?

1 Like

Jon, what did you select on workability? I feel like the Bridgestone B X is the least workable ball and will pop up a ton for people who select that.

I believe I selected the lowest option available for workability

1 Like

I’ve been thinking about these results for awhile now (I know you are all shocked that I’ve been overthinking something)… and I think the biggest conclusion for me from the Ballnamic is basically explaining to me why I got along with the Bridgestone B X so well… it does well in the wind, doesn’t move a ton with spin and feels firm off the driver… It was probably the best ball I’ve played this season…

Next year, I’ll probably hit up the 3 dozen sale (or the 3 for 4 sale) and get some personalized one for 2022.

I think the Ballnamic is kindof an odd tool right now, especially as it has 2019 balls loaded into it… it will be interesting to see if they can make tweaks to it to make it a more proper fitting tool… I have a feeling that PING fitters are going to be offering “free ball fittings” with their reps next year… come in, get shown your ball speed and spin numbers, and then get handed a PING club that improve on them…

This isn’t to accuse them of making a marketing gimmick, but it seems like the marketing team realized the “value add” they had with this tool and the pricing and process of it seem to fit that narrative… but maybe I’m just a cynic.


Thx for all that info - not that I was going to anyway, but helpful in deciding not to use it. With where my game is at now I’m happy … for now … with a mid-price ball that seems to work well enough overall for me.

1 Like

Saw my friend @greg_g today… picked up some Bridgestone BX because I keep getting fit into them and I always hit them well.

1 Like