When PING unveiled Ballnamic, my phone started lighting up almost immediately. Folks in the golf ball industry were scratching their heads, and maybe feeling a bit uneasy.
“What on earth is PING up to?” was the big question.
It’s a puzzler for sure.
Why would a company with no golf ball products to its name decide to dive into making a ball fitting system? Was PING gearing up to launch their own range of golf balls, or was this a whole new venture?
In those early days, Ballnamic turned out to be a sweet spot for earning some cash from the ball brands. Everyone was clamoring to find out what the algorithm would pick, and I chuckle even now, remembering a rep from one of the big ball companies telling me, defeatedly, that Ballnamic suggested a Cut Golf ball.
Ouch.
The calls didn’t stop, with many raising questions about Ballnamic’s handling of elements like wind and why some balls weren’t frequently recommended as some anticipated. Apparently, the algorithm played it straight, though, interestingly, Chrome Soft X seemed to pop up quite a bit.
To truly grasp PING’s motivation behind Ballnamic, you need to wind the clock back to a core principle that’s been the company’s compass for ages.
“The golf ball is the tuning fork for performance.”
These words from PING’s founder, Karsten Solheim, have been echoing within the company, sparking the creation of Ballnamic. PING’s bold move into ball fitting, sans their own balls, signifies a broader engineering ethos: the whole equipment chain doesn’t start and end with just clubs.
The golf ball is pivotal.
Why PING Created Ballnamic
“We’ve always got to design our clubs with the golf ball in mind,” says Marty Jertson, PING’s VP of Fitting and Performance. “If balls have higher spin or fly higher, we have to tweak our club heads to adjust accordingly.”
For PING, this is a long-standing truth. While many club makers might overlook the ball, PING sees it as crucial to the performance puzzle.
They’ve been testing balls for around 15 years, but the path to Ballnamic started about a decade ago. PING’s engineers noticed something unexpected in ball flight, prompting a shift in their approach to designing equipment.
Democratizing Data
The Ballnamic initiative was spurred by what Jertson describes as “decoupling” between a ball’s starting spin rate and its flight behavior.
“A low-spin ball can fly high, and conversely, a high-spin ball can fly low,” Jertson highlights, pointing out one of their key discoveries.
The significant part of this revelation is the subtle variance detectable at launch. “Across most drivers, 90% of the golf balls we test have an initial spin variance of plus or minus 200 rpm. But their subsequent flight profiles are vastly different.”
This finding reshaped PING’s approach to ball fitting and testing. If you’re using an indoor launch monitor that captures only the initial conditions, you’re missing the whole picture. Two balls might register nearly the same at impact, yet behave distinctly downrange.
Another drive was observing tour pros using the ball as the final finesse tool in their gear setup.
“With drivers, they wanted to see a bit more loft, which they were comfortable with. It aided their mechanics,” Jertson says. “Playing too little loft made them edgy. It wasn’t beneficial.”
The workaround? “They’d simply change balls” to adjust performance without altering their visual setup.
PING saw a chance to make this insight broadly accessible. “We wanted to merge our data with expertise in aerodynamics and robot testing to offer the service tour pros get to everyday golfers.”
What Golfers Learn with Ballnamic
Going through a Ballnamic fitting, many golfers find themselves enlightened by their gear setup. The process—designed to inform as well as direct—opens up fresh perspectives.
“When developing our software, customer education is vital,” Jertson explains. That learning includes eye-opening realizations like, “I didn’t know a golf ball could cut down flyers, or that it could help control the flight differently with drivers versus irons.”
This educational aspect is likely why Ballnamic is catching on. The system doesn’t merely suggest a ball; it clarifies how varied balls react to different swings and elucidates the reasons these differences matter.
For most golfers, their fitting desires are clear: distance off the tee and spin near the greens. “Most folks want more drive distance,” notes Jertson. “And a good chunk seek high greenside spin.”
This drive and spin focus might clarify why certain models featured heavily in early Ballnamic suggestions, like Chrome Soft X, which seemed to best fulfill these preferences: lengthy drives and excellent greenside spin.
Still, Jertson emphasizes that Ballnamic leaves priority-setting to golfers. “We didn’t want to dictate what’s important. Golfers tell Ballnamic what matters.”
Making the Cut: The Criteria for Ballnamic Testing
If you notice that your beloved two-piece distance ball isn’t popping up in Ballnamic’s picks, there’s a reason for that. PING has defined clear standards for the balls they examine.
"Our criteria include urethane covers, three-or-more-piece construction, and priced over $20," Jertson explains.
Although this seems exclusive, there’s logic behind it. Exploring the entire golf ball landscape would be logistically challenging. The burden of thorough testing is too hefty for every possible ball.
“The testing load is simply overwhelming,” Jertson remarks. “There are too many SKUs, and our testing is so thorough, it would blow our sample size sky-high to be sensible.”
Thus, PING directs its gaze on balls sought by more serious players. There’s wiggle room in these guidelines (Kirkland gets a nod), but Ballnamic fundamentally caters to those seeking elevated performance levels.
This doesn’t mean PING ignores the two-piece ionomer category outright. They regularly evaluate these balls to keep an eye on performance shifts.
"We’ll always keep tabs on those and test occasionally," Jertson states. "If an ionomer ball matched the performance profile needed, we’d absolutely alter our criteria."
So far, no ionomer ball has hit the performance benchmark to challenge the premium urethane contenders. Yet, the option remains open.
Similarly, PING only tests each model’s standard white version, though they recognize that colored versions might perform distinctly.
“Color can sometimes affect performance,” Jertson concedes, suggesting that adding colored balls could expand Ballnamic’s database later on.
PING’s Key Insights from Ballnamic Data
With more than 20,000 consumer fittings (not counting PING’s in-house fitters and partners), Ballnamic has given PING unparalleled insights into ball performance and market dynamics.
Firstly, PING has, with clarity, mapped performance extremes in the market. Rather than zeroing in on the “average” ball, PING holds data across the spectrum—from lowest to highest flyers, from minimal-spin to high-hop-and-stop balls that rival Tour-level bite.
“We aim to grasp the range’s performance limits to inform our product designs,” Jertson shares. This understanding plays directly into PING’s club designs, helping them build gear that harmonizes with the wide range of ball behaviors.
Accommodating the spectrum is why PING’s iron sets come in varied specs like standard, retro, and power.
Another revelation was realizing the often substantial year-to-year shifts in ball performance from identical models and makers. What Jertson found might surprise golfers believing the sidestamp is the only change. “One eye-opener in this business is how radically a brand’s ball can evolve annually.”
These aren’t slight tweaks. Balls can switch from “super-high greenside spin to medium low” in just one generation or switch from “low greenside spin to some of the highest.” These changes aren’t inherently good or bad—they’re simply different and happen more often than golfers think.
There have been instances of such drastic annual changes that PING has independently retested balls to verify.
“Some balls remain consistent year-to-year,” Jertson advises, “but others can fluctuate dramatically—from high flight to low or medium.”
For PING, these findings fuel continuous data flow, guiding club designs. With the evolving ball performance landscape, PING remains vigilant, ensuring their clubs work effectively with whichever balls players opt for.
A Multi-Ball Revolution?
One radical idea from Jertson’s insights is this: dedicated golfers might use different balls for varied situations. This strategy is more than just a choice—it’s a tactic shaking up conventional thinking.
“For every competitive round I play, there are always at least two different balls in my game,” Jertson shares. “And I think every golfer could benefit similarly.”
(This is worth considering as the USGA’s one-ball rule is typically a local one and not always in play.)
These insights hold weight, especially from Jertson, who pairs his engineering title with real game chops having played in five PGA Championships and the U.S. Open in 2020.
His ball strategy breaks into tailored advice for player types:
Average Golfers: Use at least two different models, strategically by hole type. “If you’re a 15 or 10 handicap and up, I’d suggest varying the ball for par-4s and -5s to maximize distance, then switch on par-3s for higher flight and better stopping power.”
Better Players: Choose specific balls for changing wind conditions. “Preferably, a seasoned player should have distinct balls for downwind and against-wind scenarios." This approach lets players tweak flight traits sans swing adjustments. "Using a consistent driver stroke, you can significantly alter trajectory and make your against-the-wind ball travel straighter and farther."
Perfection Seekers: Jertson has leveraged up to five different balls in one round based on wind, pin positions, and green conditions. “I clinched a local section tourney playing five different balls. The day was windy and greens firm.”
The influence is evident: “I’ve encountered holes with front pins, tough greens downwind, and absent the [Bridgestone] TOUR B XS, shredding my wedge in there wouldn’t work. It was a game-changer for my edge over rivals.”
Recreational golfers have long been guided to use one ball for consistency—a rule echoed by big ball manufacturers for decades. Jertson believes this routine may leave performance benefits untapped.
When to Revisit Your Ballnamic Fitting
Considering the frequent shifts in ball effectiveness annually, when should players reassess their Ballnamic results?
PING updates Ballnamic data at least bi-annually, often quarterly. These updates tie to new ball launches, refreshing insights on the latest performer variations.
Jertson suggests several instances to redo your Ballnamic fitting:
Post Club Fitting: “Whenever you’re fitted with a new driver or irons, it’s a great juncture for Ballnamic.”
Traveling to Varied Climates: “If you’re deeply into golf and planning a trip to Bandon, select a Ballnamic-suggested ball optimized for wind and sea level play.” Similarly, altering for altitude, Ballnamic aids in selecting air-optimized balls.
After Ballnamic Database Updates: As annual ball behavior may change drastically, re-evaluations post data updates ensure you’re getting timely advice.
To simplify frequent fittings, PING’s adjusted its pricing model, easing ball fitting accessibility. Rather than a flat $39 for five uses, golfers choose flexible options: $15 for a single session, $29 for three, or the original five-for-$39. These sessions are shareable, introducing Ballnamic’s insights to friends and usual golf buddies.
The Future of Ballnamic
So what’s next for Ballnamic? PING has some exciting tweaks lined up.
“We’re developing a kiosk mode for store ball sections,” reveals Jertson. This innovation is in testing with some PING affiliates, expected to make fittings more approachable for the everyday player.
Even more compelling, PING is working on enhanced wind performance analysis. “We’re ramping up wind analysis to help golfers grasp ball behaviors in gusty settings.”
This angle on wind performance aligns with Jertson’s multi-ball tactic and the noticeable impact wind has across ball structures.
The Tuning Fork Keeps Ringing
If anything, PING’s Ballnamic expedition underscores that the golf ball is not just another gear piece—it’s the anchor point. Karsten’s “tuning fork” analogy is spot-on.
What started as an internal club design test evolved into a consumerserving tool that’s reshaping ball selection paradigms. On this journey, it highlights how optimizing this often-first-overlooked element can unlock significant performance gains.
The paradox is clear: one of the most advanced ball fitting systems comes from a brand that doesn’t manufacture balls. Yet, in true PING fashion, they tackle the question from an engineering viewpoint, not a sales pitch. The mission isn’t selling balls—it’s about zeroing in on the best ball (or balls) for your game, imparting a lesson for you along the way.
As Jertson sums it up, “we just want to match golfers to the right ball.”
In an industry where each brand often claims it has the remedy for everyone, Ballnamic’s approach feels refreshingly genuine.
