The carry data is based on the assumption that the ball is standard sized with more drag. I think you'd need to track the whole path of the ball to get an accurate comparison. Another illegal ball video please!
Good point. The carry distance on the TrackMan might not be accurate. Would have been nice for him to walk out and see where they ended up in the fairway.
It wasn't clear how you got the carry numbers at the end, so you may have done it right already. But: you can't use GC3 carry numbers for these balls, you'd need to pace it out or use a full-flight trackman type system to get the real numbers. The reason is that optical launch monitors simulate the ball flight assuming the ball is like a Pro V1 and it won't take into account the smaller ball size when doing that simulation.
That was the first thought that came into my head when I started watching. GC3 would calculate distance on regular sized balls and likely doesn't have the option to downsize the diameter to recalculate.
Exactly. The camera-based launch monitors measure only a few inches of ball flight and use that to calculate what it will do by comparing those values against a table produced from measuring "typical" shots. This ball is atypical, so those lookup tables aren't valid, and not something that their normalization algorithms are likely tuned to support.
My thoughts exactly Phil, I've hit a few of these as a bit of fun and they just go for miles with my swing speed around 128-130mph my prov1x -left dash off centre strikes (no conditions) clears about 330m (360 yards), these things fly out to around 345-350m.
I was around when golf balls went from 1.66" minimum to 1.68" minimum diameter. With the introduction of the new standard, there was much gnashing of teeth over the loss of distance but much joy from those who wanted to spin the ball back when hitting the green. The larger ball also gave us greater confidence with striking the ball.
I don't think the GC3 is measuring it accurately. You would need to physically pace off the distance or use a Trackman to get the true numbers. GC3 is using an algorithm to estimate distance. If the ball you're using is smaller than a normal ball, it will necessarily throw off that algorithm.
Absolutely. It's calibrated for the aerodynamic drag of a regular sized ball. Huge difference when the ball has a much smaller surface area and circumference.
But the first ones he hit he measured off the bunker at 315 and the other he estimated 30 further. The GC3 may not be accurate for them that did show they were actually longer.
I started playing golf in the late 1960s when the "British" size golf balls were 1.62", I hated it when the change was made to 1.68" as it knocked 30 yards off my drives and that's when drivers were actually made of wood.
Thanks for the review Matt. We all want to get the most out of our game. Casual rounds with friends I guess it wouldn't really matter but if you actually keep a USGA handicap to use at any point, it's probably not worth it. They would be fun to try out though.
At one time the ball in the UK was 1.62 and then the R&A and USGA decided on 1.68. I think it was smaller because of the wind and weather bur, I may be wrong.
I would have liked to see your usual gamer on the course compared to the drives you hit as you played, not based off the GC quad. Like others said, the camera based calculated launch monitors would have to be programmed with the smaller ball. A trackman or radar based launch monitor that captures full flight would probably be more accurate.
I wonder if the GC3 reading is skewed because of the size of the ball? Also, it's probably a crappy ball so maybe it is 30 yards longer than other crappy balls, but the ProV1 closes that gap haha.
No, it’s definitely farther than the Pro-V1. The reason it only shows 4 yards more carry on the launch monitor is because it only captures the data at and right after impact. The smaller size of the ball makes it fly through the air with less resistance. The launch monitor can’t factor that in. So it’s 4 yards further just on the ball make up and doesn’t include the additional yardage it’s gaining throughout the flight compared to a larger, standard size ball.
Unless you actually measured those distances with a range finder I wouldn't trust the GC Quad numbers. They are calculating for a regulation ball for wind resistance surely.
Was there a reason that u did show the landing area to show the role out. 5 mph in long drive is more than 4 yards on the ground depending on angle of descent. Just curious
They should go further being smaller. What was the old ball for England size before it was changed to the USGA size, 1.62? It went about 10% further, that's why the Americans used to switch to it for The Open.
the distance is one thing, but i'd be willing to bet if you're already a fair putter, you'd see some balls roll in the hole that might otherwise lip out. That's probably the real strength of the ball, but it would take a season to test it
Matt, Ask your Dad about the days when we all used the 1.62" ball, in the days before the USGA insisted the 1.68" ball should be the World wide standard.
I do believe that the balls would also go straighter. With less size, less drag, less affect on the flight of the ball. I think they would be longer and straighter. Worth the money? Not sure since it is an illegal ball. Would my playing partners notice? Hmm....
So someone screws up at the ball manufacturing company makes balls too small and out of spec has your brilliant idea to sell them as illegal golf balls, and charge more money for the illegal, farther flying ball, brilliant, Someone got a bonus. 🤣
Bang on Matt not worth it for the yardage gain yet all the club manufacturers bring out new clubs every year and we don’t see the yardage gains they claim so should we be paying the exorbitant prices each year I think not.
Why would it make any difference. It's a guy testing a ball vs his standard numbers. Would likely end up being the same results or no different at all. It's no different than getting a smaller headed driver of course it goes a little faster.
They're probably an overrun or bad batch that they just rebranded to make it seem like it was intentional. Making money off of mistakes is never a bad way to make up for the lost resources on the bad batch.
As others have stated and I'll beat the horse dead as well, you cannot use tracking data for this sort of testing. The model used by these have assumptions built into them and those assumptions are important to the backend equations, one is that the ball is standard size with standard reactions in flight. That is not true with this ball.
I hate videos like this. Your silly computer has fixed inputs and just runs a calculation. It doesn't know if you teed up a marshmallow or a ping pong ball. It doesn't use ballistic coefficient ratings or weight ratings ect ect. Show the video of collecting the balls.
I think you are lying to yourself and us...you said it many time you hit these balls longer and in location you have not been. Moreover, you should have gone to where the balls ended up and showed us where the 5 Pro V's stopped vs the Bandit. Be honest don't make up crap to gain a favor from Titleist.
The carry data is based on the assumption that the ball is standard sized with more drag. I think you'd need to track the whole path of the ball to get an accurate comparison. Another illegal ball video please!
Good point. The carry distance on the TrackMan might not be accurate. Would have been nice for him to walk out and see where they ended up in the fairway.
It wasn't clear how you got the carry numbers at the end, so you may have done it right already. But: you can't use GC3 carry numbers for these balls, you'd need to pace it out or use a full-flight trackman type system to get the real numbers.
The reason is that optical launch monitors simulate the ball flight assuming the ball is like a Pro V1 and it won't take into account the smaller ball size when doing that simulation.
That was the first thought that came into my head when I started watching. GC3 would calculate distance on regular sized balls and likely doesn't have the option to downsize the diameter to recalculate.
Exactly. The camera-based launch monitors measure only a few inches of ball flight and use that to calculate what it will do by comparing those values against a table produced from measuring "typical" shots. This ball is atypical, so those lookup tables aren't valid, and not something that their normalization algorithms are likely tuned to support.
It's just lazy to pretend the monitor can actually tell how different weights and aerodynamics affect end result.
My thoughts exactly Phil, I've hit a few of these as a bit of fun and they just go for miles with my swing speed around 128-130mph my prov1x -left dash off centre strikes (no conditions) clears about 330m (360 yards), these things fly out to around 345-350m.
3:25 "I tell you what, that does look longer" had me DYING laughing!!!
I was around when golf balls went from 1.66" minimum to 1.68" minimum diameter.
With the introduction of the new standard, there was much gnashing of teeth over the loss of distance but much joy from those who wanted to spin the ball back when hitting the green. The larger ball also gave us greater confidence with striking the ball.
I don't think the GC3 is measuring it accurately. You would need to physically pace off the distance or use a Trackman to get the true numbers. GC3 is using an algorithm to estimate distance. If the ball you're using is smaller than a normal ball, it will necessarily throw off that algorithm.
Absolutely. It's calibrated for the aerodynamic drag of a regular sized ball. Huge difference when the ball has a much smaller surface area and circumference.
This
Agreed Matt. I’m sure when you picked them up the smaller ones were actually longer?
But the first ones he hit he measured off the bunker at 315 and the other he estimated 30 further. The GC3 may not be accurate for them that did show they were actually longer.
@@Dreyno that’s what I’m saying. Those balls are definitely longer than just a 4 yard increase.
1:48 your initial FEELING... Is they sound a specific way??? Riiiiiiiiiiight... That's some across the pond intelligence at its finest! 😂🤦♂️👍
"Does a smaller ball make the hole bigger"? Priceless wit.
I would have enjoyed you walking up and seeing exactly where those balls finished after the roll. I wonder if they roll further than the pro V ones?
I started playing golf in the late 1960s when the "British" size golf balls were 1.62", I hated it when the change was made to 1.68" as it knocked 30 yards off my drives and that's when drivers were actually made of wood.
So glad you actually did this video I seen these on Amazon and wondered if these claims were true or not
Thanks for the review Matt. We all want to get the most out of our game. Casual rounds with friends I guess it wouldn't really matter but if you actually keep a USGA handicap to use at any point, it's probably not worth it. They would be fun to try out though.
£50 for 4 yards , I've seen people spend £500 on a drive for the same gains.😂😂😂
I was thinking the same 😂
Plus that’s a similar price to amazons pro v1 price
I wonder about the pro -v1 (Left Dash) would it compare closer to that bandit ball?
At the end, I would've like to see where they ended up, because they definitely looked longer than the ProVs on the tracers.
Is that the new titleist driver I see? I thought you were keeping the cobra?
Now I want to see you play Mr. Finch with this ball…but don’t tell him! 😂
Well done matt 👏 👍
I love the look of the box something a bit different
At one time the ball in the UK was 1.62 and then the R&A and USGA decided on 1.68. I think it was smaller because of the wind and weather bur, I may be wrong.
That would certainly make sense to me, the winds on those coastal courses can be INSANE
I would have liked to see your usual gamer on the course compared to the drives you hit as you played, not based off the GC quad. Like others said, the camera based calculated launch monitors would have to be programmed with the smaller ball. A trackman or radar based launch monitor that captures full flight would probably be more accurate.
Matt you should have busted out the Hammer Driver w/ those Illegal golf balls. Imagine the distance you would get from those paired together.
I wonder if the GC3 reading is skewed because of the size of the ball? Also, it's probably a crappy ball so maybe it is 30 yards longer than other crappy balls, but the ProV1 closes that gap haha.
No, it’s definitely farther than the Pro-V1. The reason it only shows 4 yards more carry on the launch monitor is because it only captures the data at and right after impact.
The smaller size of the ball makes it fly through the air with less resistance. The launch monitor can’t factor that in. So it’s 4 yards further just on the ball make up and doesn’t include the additional yardage it’s gaining throughout the flight compared to a larger, standard size ball.
@@michaelbarker3749 I agree completely, I meant it's probably an even bigger increase in distance when compared to cheaper balls in it's same class.
Science!! You can’t beat it. A smaller ball of decent construction should go further. 🥂
Unless you actually measured those distances with a range finder I wouldn't trust the GC Quad numbers. They are calculating for a regulation ball for wind resistance surely.
I wondered that, surely the Quad is more accurate indoors? But then again we play golf outdoors so it was a relevant test.
Haha I've used them before. They seemed to go straighter for me than a normal ball. Didn't notice a ton of extra distance.
You gotta cut one open so we can see the core! May be a two piece ball like driving range golf balls??? Who knows?
Yeah I was thinking that.
in 1990 they standardized golf ball size . Before that, british golf balls were 1.62. smaller.
Was there a reason that u did show the landing area to show the role out. 5 mph in long drive is more than 4 yards on the ground depending on angle of descent. Just curious
They should go further being smaller. What was the old ball for England size before it was changed to the USGA size, 1.62? It went about 10% further, that's why the Americans used to switch to it for The Open.
the distance is one thing, but i'd be willing to bet if you're already a fair putter, you'd see some balls roll in the hole that might otherwise lip out. That's probably the real strength of the ball, but it would take a season to test it
Matt, Ask your Dad about the days when we all used the 1.62" ball, in the days before the USGA insisted the 1.68" ball should be the World wide standard.
If I got them for free I might use them at the range for a laugh but that's all.
Nice review and yeah, that box looks awful
Cheers
Small balls go further but big balls go straighter and get up in the air easier. They sell big balls as a fairway finder.
AMAZUN
Matt, when you went down to collect the balls, were the Bandits more than 4 yards longer though?
How are you finding the new tsr2?
You'd get the same distances with a Slazenger, Rock-Flite etc
I do believe that the balls would also go straighter. With less size, less drag, less affect on the flight of the ball. I think they would be longer and straighter. Worth the money? Not sure since it is an illegal ball. Would my playing partners notice? Hmm....
So someone screws up at the ball manufacturing company makes balls too small and out of spec has your brilliant idea to sell them as illegal golf balls, and charge more money for the illegal, farther flying ball, brilliant, Someone got a bonus. 🤣
Where do you get all your cool mizano apparel?
Bang on Matt not worth it for the yardage gain yet all the club manufacturers bring out new clubs every year and we don’t see the yardage gains they claim so should we be paying the exorbitant prices each year I think not.
Play them against finch without saying owt
But you have only measured the gain on your ability. Test them on a 12 hcp or a 24hcp and see how many yards they get??
My guess will be zero.
Why would it make any difference. It's a guy testing a ball vs his standard numbers. Would likely end up being the same results or no different at all. It's no different than getting a smaller headed driver of course it goes a little faster.
You'd have to play Pete or Andy with those.
What putter are you using?
Great comments from golf nerds why are we bothering if it's illegal 🙄 🤔
They're probably an overrun or bad batch that they just rebranded to make it seem like it was intentional. Making money off of mistakes is never a bad way to make up for the lost resources on the bad batch.
As others have stated and I'll beat the horse dead as well, you cannot use tracking data for this sort of testing. The model used by these have assumptions built into them and those assumptions are important to the backend equations, one is that the ball is standard size with standard reactions in flight. That is not true with this ball.
I tried them and gained 20 yards. From 210 to just over 230. Happened over and over.
The person who wrote the claims for the golf balls probably wrote the self promoting reviews for Rings of Power 😂. Amazon is on a roll imo.
I have a new scramble ball!
No spin numbers??
What happens to your yards if you deloft the driver
If your playing for fun and no money involved these balls are fine..
Very clicky sounding on the video. But a crooked shot will just go farther off line.
I’m getting me a box of these. I need all the help I can at my age.
Wow They sound terrible .... seem to work well though
They fly but the price too high.😂😂👍
I hate videos like this. Your silly computer has fixed inputs and just runs a calculation. It doesn't know if you teed up a marshmallow or a ping pong ball. It doesn't use ballistic coefficient ratings or weight ratings ect ect. Show the video of collecting the balls.
Hate this type of post, they are illegal so whats the point?
I think you are lying to yourself and us...you said it many time you hit these balls longer and in location you have not been. Moreover, you should have gone to where the balls ended up and showed us where the 5 Pro V's stopped vs the Bandit. Be honest don't make up crap to gain a favor from Titleist.