Opinion & Analysis
The Science of Mud Balls (and predicting their flight)
Recently, I had a few people ask whether we have done any research at Ping on the effects of mud on a golf ball, or “mud balls.” It turns out that one of our engineers had encountered a significant amount of mud on the right side of his ball in a tournament earlier this year. Unsure what the effect on ball flight would be, he aimed for the middle of the green and watched his ball draw into the rough, well left of the green. This spurred a debate as to whether the effect of mud on ball flight could be consistently predicted.
We did some theoretical analysis, which showed that mud on the right side of the ball should almost always cause the resultant ball flight to curve to the left. The main reason is aerodynamics – a golf ball with no dimples on the right would also curve to the left. The question is – with mud, is this effect measurable and repeatable?
To test our hypothesis we set up a G30 4-iron on our Ping Man robot and set the swing characteristics to a faster swing-speed player. The club speed prior to impact was set to 95 mph, leading to center hits carrying a little over 220 yards with a Titleist Pro V1x ball. We then teed up a number of balls with mud caked on different areas. Some had mud covering the entire surface of the ball, while others had mud applied to one area – either the front, back, top, bottom, left or right side of the ball.
We used a lot of mud to try to maximize the effect and get the most measurable results. However, our high-speed video analysis of impact showed that much of the mud fell off the ball immediately, regardless of how much mud we applied.
A short statistics lesson is needed to interpret the results. Ping Man is extremely consistent and so usually no more than three shots are needed in any configuration to establish a reliable set of data. In our bar charts, the average of the three shots is the bar itself, while the “error bars” on either side of the bar show what we call a 95 percent confidence interval. This means we are 95 percent confident that if we took 1,000 or even 1 million shots on Ping Man, the average would fall in this interval.
The more shots you take, and the more repeatable the data, the smaller the error bars are. If you look at 2 bars where the error bars overlap, this means there is no statistically significant difference and a correct statement is that the averages are “broadly the same.” If there is a clear gap between error bars, the statistical conclusion is that there is almost certainly a real difference in the averages.
Does mud on the right of the ball cause it to bend consistently in one direction?
The average offline distance for a clean ball, a ball covered in mud, and balls with mud on the left or right.
The answer is categorically yes. Figure 1 shows that balls with mud on the right ended up around 25 yards left of the target on average – a statistically significant result. Likewise, with mud on the left, the ball ended up around 25 yards right of the target. With mud all over, the balls ended up statistically no different to the clean balls. You can see that the error bars are much wider for all of the mud balls than the clean balls. The mud is making the ball flight less consistent, which is no surprise. However, the take home message is that if you find your ball on the fairway with mud on the right side, aim right of your target and you can be confident that the ball will curve a long way to the left. This was tested by one of our engineers in competition not long after we conducted the test and he was able to aim right with confidence and find the middle of the green.
Does mud on the ball cause it to fly shorter?
Figure 2: Average carry distance for a range of different mud conditions when compared with a clean ball.
Figure 2 shows the carry distance of all the configurations we tested. There was a significant drop in distance for all of the mud balls, but the most dramatic drop by far occurred when mud interfered with the club-ball interaction. With mud on the back or bottom of the ball, the club impacts mud before the ball and — no surprise — mud is not great for energy transfer. Even when mud does not get in the way of the club, ball speed is lower, which is a result of some of the energy in the club head going toward accelerating mud rather than the ball. The message here is: Take an extra club if there is a lot of mud on the ball, maybe even a couple of extra clubs. Our test shows the extreme case because we used a lot of mud, but the effect will exist whenever there is an impediment like mud on the ball.
This kind of little experiment reminds me how fortunate I am to work in an engineering department where if we have a question based on observations during a round, we have all the tools at our disposal to answer that question in a systematic and reliable way. I hope this helps shed a little light on what you can do if you’re unfortunate enough to find mud on your ball during a round.
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
Pingback: 101 Days Until April - The Fried Egg
Graham
Apr 1, 2016 at 11:25 am
Intriguing stuff. One question I’d like to ask is “why doesn’t mud detach instantly once a ball is struck?” If I want to get mud off my shoes I bang them together, and I’d imagine the energy imparted to a golf ball on being struck is of a larger order.
Pingback: 7 Ways to Play Better Golf in the Rain | The DIY Golfer
Pingback: OT golfers
Pingback: The Science of Mud Balls | Honourable Society of Golf Fanatics
Max
Dec 17, 2015 at 8:37 pm
This is good info to know but I, personally, avoid this problem by playing winter rules all year.
Pingback: A “Muddy” Lesson | World Junior Golf
Steve Thomas
Dec 17, 2015 at 2:53 pm
This is an excellent article. I would like to know what happens to a ball after you have hit a cart path. Most of the time I just buff them out using the strap on my golf cart, kind of like sandpaper, but on some occasions when the ball hits an asphalt cart path, then it’s really scuffed up too bad to use and I just put those balls in my shag bag.
birdeez
Dec 17, 2015 at 10:02 am
i’d love to ask those labeling this as shank why they do so….tough to please or just complete jerks. this type of article is what makes wrx unique and the number one site in golf. i’m sure you prefer golf digest articles on how to cure your slice for the umpteenth time.
Pingback: The Science of mud balls and predicting their flight | Welcome to Raflewski Golf!
viking62
Dec 16, 2015 at 6:28 pm
so if there is mud on the right side of the ball – your average right handed golfer should hit the ball much straighter. Maybe someone should make a ball that acts like a ball with mud on the right hand side.
Da
Dec 17, 2015 at 2:11 am
And how would you use that in the fairway or rough? You would only be able to use it off the tee. And how would that affect roll on the green, you thunk?
What a dumbazz
vikings62
Dec 17, 2015 at 8:46 pm
It was a joke dimwit
Scooter McGavin
Dec 17, 2015 at 6:52 am
They do make those. They’re called Polara golf balls and have dimple patterns that make them fly straight. Non-conforming, though.
Matthew Bacon
Dec 16, 2015 at 5:59 pm
I liked the article and echo the sentiments about wondering how scuffs affect the flight
Da
Dec 17, 2015 at 2:12 am
Just think “range balls” and you’ll get the idea
Jack Nash
Dec 16, 2015 at 5:53 pm
What’s a mud ball? When you go and identify your ball you inadvertently brush off the blob when you place it back down. ????
Big t off 2
Dec 16, 2015 at 5:07 pm
Think Jordan should learn how to read first before putting his big golf shoe in it you silly boy!
Great advice for us novice golfers @ this time of year…
8thehardway
Dec 16, 2015 at 4:11 pm
A Hall of Fame article that should be pinned somewhere for permanent exposure.
Scott
Dec 17, 2015 at 3:25 pm
+1
Shank you very much
Dec 16, 2015 at 3:09 pm
After reading this and seeing 3 “shanks” with no comments I have to believe that there are people out there that just shank these articles to be a douche. Don’t understand why someone wouldn’t just clean the mud off the ball before playing a shot? Can’t swing fast enough to notice the difference? Slice so bad that a watermelon sized clump of mud on the ball doesn’t make a difference?
jc
Dec 16, 2015 at 4:16 pm
duh, because you can’t clean the ball if it is not on the green? read a rules book.
JZ
Dec 16, 2015 at 4:35 pm
Um, I think that was Shank’s point. 3 people shanked the article with no comment. His 3 reasons were why they could possibly do this – thereby implying one of those 3 didn’t know the rule and just assumed you’d clean the ball. And, you’re assessment isn’t completely accurate as there are times you can clean your ball. Lift, clean and place, anyone? Before you shank on someone, maybe you should take the time to try to understand what they said.
Jeff*
Dec 17, 2015 at 4:31 pm
Well, the rules of golf. Some folks are cursed by integrity.
Steven
Dec 16, 2015 at 3:05 pm
Great article. I really liked seeing the statistics.
Da
Dec 17, 2015 at 2:13 am
Ditto
Forsbrand
Dec 16, 2015 at 2:55 pm
A story from Phil Mickelsons College golf days – Phil is playing a guy called Manny Zerman, Phil calls Manny over asks for relief as his ball has muck on the side of it. Manny says sorry no you’ll have to play it as it is. Phil says ok no problem hits an exaggerated in to out swing and hooks the ball 25 yards through the air and holes it for an eagle. Zermans coach walking with the match calls manny over and tells him next time Phil Mickelson asks for relief you give it to him ok?!
Jordan
Dec 16, 2015 at 2:29 pm
I love that you tried to use REAL statistics as empirical evidence but creating a 95% confidence interval off of 3 swings is pretty dumb. Why not just take the generally accepted 30 observations so you can have realistic statistical inference.
Paul Wood
Dec 17, 2015 at 7:53 pm
Jordan – you make a fair point. 3 swings in general is not very many. To be honest, if I was doing this test for a research paper I’d certainly hit more balls, and I’d also want to repeat with more different swings and on different days, but this was really to satisfy some curiosity at our end. The statistics are real though. The confidence interval takes into account the number of swings and so it’s inherently bigger for 3 swings than 5 or 10 or 30. Part of what makes PING Man valuable is that he is so consistent we can hit 3 shots and see statistical significance in most tests. This particular test played to his strength extremely well. We just set up one swing and all we changed was the ball.
Jordan
Dec 17, 2015 at 7:59 pm
Very good. Thanks for the reply! Forgot about the precision of “Ping Man”. I’d love to see you guys further pursue this with a bigger sample so we maybe bring that confidence interval into a ultra small range
Stretch
Dec 18, 2015 at 11:57 am
I would like to see the test add off center hits to see if the ball reacts in a more extreme way.
Max
Dec 16, 2015 at 2:27 pm
Awesome. As a lifetime golfer and an engineer, I can say this is one of the best pieces I’ve ever seen on here. Thank you, Paul.
ParHunter
Dec 16, 2015 at 12:49 pm
Now that is an article that is relevant for the normal golfer at this time of the year! Thank you.
Double Mocha Man
Dec 16, 2015 at 12:32 pm
I always have mud on the back of the ball, thus I smoosh it against the ball at impact and get “knuckleballs”.
Chuck
Dec 16, 2015 at 12:31 pm
This is so cool. I always wonder, how much tour players read GolfWRX. I expect that about 500 of the best players in the world will all read this and talk about it on the range. And that every single caddy will have a discussion about it, with their boss or with other caddies.
JP
Dec 17, 2015 at 9:31 pm
Tour players already know what mud does to their golf balls, and how to play them. There are very few shots tour pros have not encountered or don’t know how to play….
alexdub
Dec 16, 2015 at 12:04 pm
This is why I will always play Ping… Innovation and explanation through passion for the game.
Mat
Dec 16, 2015 at 11:52 am
THIS is why we come here. Fantastic information! Here’s to lift-clean-replace being in effect…
Ian
Dec 16, 2015 at 11:35 am
Needed to know this about a week ago – my course had a lot of rain and I had plenty of mud balls. I was just trying to find fairways so I could lift, clean and cheat.
+2 man
Dec 16, 2015 at 10:24 am
Great analysis. I’ve always wondered about the “Ball will fly away from the mud” common advice, given the rotation of the ball in flight.
Curious about the mud on the bottom causing such a significant distance loss compared to all the others that don’t directly interfere with contact. I wouldn’t have expected that.
Emb
Dec 16, 2015 at 4:49 pm
Since they’ve shown mud to cause to ball to curve in the opposite direction of where the mud is attached I would guess mud on the bottom reduces backspin so severely that the ball just fell out of the air very quickly and lost a ton of carry distance
Progolfer
Dec 16, 2015 at 10:09 am
Fantastic article!
Ben
Dec 16, 2015 at 9:47 am
Very interesting! Great to see statistical data on this. This is knowledge I can directly apply on the course. Thanks!