Opinion & Analysis

The Science of Mud Balls (and predicting their flight)

Published

10 years ago

Dec 16, 2015

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.

Related Topics:

Up Next

The 15 Best GolfWRX Stories of 2015

Don't Miss

An inside look at playing in a PGA Tour Pro-Am

Paul Wood

Paul is the Vice President of Engineering at Ping, coordinating a department responsible for club design, development, innovation and testing. He moved there in 2005 after completing a PhD studying Solar Flares in the Mathematics Department at St Andrews University, Scotland. He has spent most of his time with Ping in the research department working on the physics of ball flight, the club-ball impact and many other aspects of golf science. Some of his projects at Ping include the nFlight fitting software, iPing, Turbulators and TR face technology. The idea behind these articles is to explain a bit about popular scientific topics in golf in a way that is accessible to most. Hopefully that will be easier than it sounds. www.ping.com

43 Comments

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.

Reply Report comment
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.

Reply Report comment
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.

Reply Report comment
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.

Reply Report comment
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.

Reply Report comment
- 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
  
  Reply Report comment
  - vikings62
    
    Dec 17, 2015 at 8:46 pm
    
    It was a joke dimwit
    
    Reply Report comment
- 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.
  
  Reply Report comment
Matthew Bacon

Dec 16, 2015 at 5:59 pm

I liked the article and echo the sentiments about wondering how scuffs affect the flight

Reply Report comment
- Da
  
  Dec 17, 2015 at 2:12 am
  
  Just think “range balls” and you’ll get the idea
  
  Reply Report comment
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. ????

Reply Report comment
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…

Reply Report comment
8thehardway

Dec 16, 2015 at 4:11 pm

A Hall of Fame article that should be pinned somewhere for permanent exposure.

Reply Report comment
- Scott
  
  Dec 17, 2015 at 3:25 pm
  
  +1
  
  Reply Report comment
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?

Reply Report comment
- 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.
  
  Reply Report comment
  - 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.
    
    Reply Report comment
- Jeff*
  
  Dec 17, 2015 at 4:31 pm
  
  Well, the rules of golf. Some folks are cursed by integrity.
  
  Reply Report comment
Steven

Dec 16, 2015 at 3:05 pm

Great article. I really liked seeing the statistics.

Reply Report comment
- Da
  
  Dec 17, 2015 at 2:13 am
  
  Ditto
  
  Reply Report comment
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?!

Reply Report comment
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.

Reply Report comment
- 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.
  
  Reply Report comment
  - 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
    
    Reply Report comment
  - 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.
    
    Reply Report comment
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.

Reply Report comment
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.

Reply Report comment
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”.

Reply Report comment
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.

Reply Report comment
- 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….
  
  Reply Report comment
alexdub

Dec 16, 2015 at 12:04 pm

This is why I will always play Ping… Innovation and explanation through passion for the game.

Reply Report comment
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…

Reply Report comment
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.

Reply Report comment
+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.

Reply Report comment
- 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
  
  Reply Report comment
Progolfer

Dec 16, 2015 at 10:09 am

Fantastic article!

Reply Report comment
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!

Reply Report comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

5 Things We Learned: Thursday at the PGA Championship

Published

2 weeks ago

May 15, 2026

Ronald Montesano

Aronimink is not a storied club, but when Donald Ross himself proclaimed it to be as good as he can design and build, one had to take notice. Jay Sigel was the pre-eminent male amateur golfer from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s. He might have called any number of Philadelphia clubs home, but he chose Aronimink. It served him well. Gary Player won a PGA Championship here in 1962, and was followed by the 1993 winner … nobody. Aronimink gave that event away to Inverness, for reasons of which it is certainly not proud. So be it. We had to wait sixty-four years for the PGA to return to Newtown Square, but here we are. Aronimink has been neo-restored by Gil Hanse and team, to return Ross features with an eye toward defense against the dark arts, errrr, high-tech equipment.

Day one saw Rory McIlroy and Bryson DeChambeau dig big holes, to the tune of plus-four and plus-six, respectively. Since the first-round lead will be minus-three at worst, many shots will need to be made up for the power couple to reach contention. By nightfall, seven golfers held the day-one lead at three-under par 67. Shots and sticks caught our attention, and we are proud to present Five Things We Learned on Tech Thursday at the 2026 PGA Championship. Thanks to InsideTourGolfer, Today’s Golfer, and GolfWRX for initial equipment research.

First, meet Min Woo Lee

Min Woo Lee, aka Dr. Chipinski, has once again thrust himself into the conversation of Can he, will he, when will he? Lee has so much talent, wins not nearly as often as we believe that he should, and has no major near-misses (much less titles) on his wiki. The young Aussie is getting older and wiser, but is he able to avoid the scarring that holds the older and wiser back from breaking through? Philadelphia offers another opportunity. Min Woo signed for five birdies and two bogeys on day one, and grabbed a share of the opening-day lead at Aronimink. Winners transcend history and the moment, and Lee will need that sort of ascent to lift the Wannamaker on Sunday.

Second, meet Aldrich Potgeiter

The young South African golfer can rip driver with the best of them. Aronimink tips out at nearly 7400 yards, but beyond the fairway bunkers that ensnare only the mortals, Potgeiter can take his chances with wedge from the rough. On Thursday, he spent plenty of time in the spinach. Like Popeye, he used his muscles to gouge and thrash and dig his way out. Six birdies against three bogeys on the card brought AP in a three deep.

Third, meet Martin Kaymer

Not a major event takes place without a where’s he been throwback moment. We know that Martin Kaymer left the PGA and DP World tours for LIV golf, but the two-time (US Open and PGA) major winner has a lifetime exemption into at least one major event, and he seizes the opportunity each May. Kaymer joined the six-seven brigade with four birdies and a solitary bogey on day one. Kaymer was never a long hitter, and the years are kind to no golfer. The German champion will need to uncork every bottle of guile and strategy in his cabinet to remain in contention. For today, though, he occupies a rung on the ladder of Tour Tech.

Fourth, meet Scottie Scheffler

Let’s see, he’s the defending champion at the PGA, and he found his way back to the top tier with five birdies against two bogeys. To be a favorite and then play up to that stature and expectation is quite difficult. Just ask Rory, Bryson, and some of the other pre-tournament heartthrobs. Scheffler’s game is complete, and to knock him off the OWGR #1 pedestal, one needs to defeat him at the majors. Aronimink is the sort of course that fits Scheffler’s game. Better yet, it unfits the game of many of his challengers. Don’t expect Scheffler to go away anytime soon. Come Sunday, he’ll be around.

Fifth, meet Stephan Jaeger

Clocking in for the unheralded players shift are Ryo Hisatsune and Stephan Jaeger. Hisatsune logged seven birdies on day one, but gave most of them back with four bogeys. Still, he’s tied at the top for a time. Jaeger pitched five birdies against two bogeys, including a run of three consecutive, from holes four through six. Odds are that one of the two will hang around through 36 holes. Odds also suggest that both will be gone by Saturday evening. Still, the PGA Championship has historically been the major most likely to be won by an under-known. Both Hisatsune and Jaeger feature on that list, so good luck, lads!

Club Junkie

Club Junkie’s Titleist GTS driver fitting results!

Published

2 weeks ago

May 14, 2026

Brian Knudson

On this episode of the Club Junkie Podcast, I head to the Titleist Performance Institute for a full driver fitting with the new Titleist GTS lineup. We dive into the fitting process, talk about what made the biggest difference in performance, and break down how the different GTS heads and shaft combinations compare on the launch monitor. If you are thinking about a new driver setup for this season, there is a lot to take away from this one.

I also get into Brooks Koepka and the gear setup he brought to the PGA Championship, including the putters that caught my eye during the week. There are some interesting equipment trends showing up at the highest level right now and we break down what stands out.

To wrap things up, I talk about reshafting a few wedges, what I learned during the process, and swapping an adaptor onto a new shaft for another build project in the shop. A gear packed episode from start to finish for anyone who loves golf equipment and club building.

Follow Club Junkie everywhere:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/clubjunkiepod/
X: https://x.com/ClubJunkiePod
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@clubjunkiepod
Threads: https://www.threads.com/@clubjunkiepod

Club Junkie

Club Junkie WITB, week 16: New Titleist GTS woods!

Published

2 weeks ago

May 14, 2026

Brian Knudson

Excited for this week’s WITB as we get to add the new Titleist GTS woods to the bag! I was fit at Titleist’s TPI facility in Oceanside California a few weeks ago and my new clubs just showed up. I am also adding a cool set of irons that I built last year some wild custom wedges into a new golf bag. Speaking of the bag I have a new Ghost Anyday Black Ops stand bag that I will be using on my Motocaddy Remote M7 electric cart.

Driver: Titleist GTS3 (11 degrees @ 10.25)
Shaft: Fujikura Ventus Red 6s

3-wood: Titleist GT1 3Tour (14.5 degrees)
Shaft: Graphite Design Tour AD CQ-7s

5-wood: Titleist GTS (18 degrees)
Shaft: Fujikura Ventus Red 7s

9-wood: Titleist GT1 (24 degress)
Shaft: Fujikura Ventus Red 7s

Irons: Bettinardi CB24 (5-PW)
Shafts: KBS C-Taper Lite 110 stiff

Wedge: TaylorMade MG5 (50-09 SB)
Shaft: Mitsubishi MMT 125 Stiff

Wedge: TaylorMade MG5 (56-12 SB)
Shaft: Mitsubishi MMT 125 Stiff

Wedge: TaylorMade MG5 (60-08 LB)
Shaft: Mitsubishi MMT 125 Stiff

Putter: Dan Carraher ZT Proto

Ball: Callaway Chrome Tour

Bag: Ghost Anyday Black Ops Stand Bag