Titleist CEO suggests Tiger is shilling for inferior ball company

WAxORxDCxSCWAxORxDCxSC Members Posts: 110 ✭✭
The outgoing CEO of Acushnet fired back at the USGA and Tiger Woods, suggesting that Tiger’s comments were motivated by the fact that Bridgestone produces an inferior ball, and they would have a commercial interest in a “reduced distance” golf ball.



[URL] https://www.golf.com/tour-news/2017/11/20/titleist-ceo-questions-need-reduced-flight-golf-ball [/URL]
TaylorMade M3 Driver 9.5* (Mitsubishi Tensei Pro Orange 70tx)
TaylorMade M1 (2016) 3 Wood 15* (Mitsubishi Tensei Pro Blue 80tx)
TaylorMade M2 Hybrid 19* (or) Mizuno MP-18 Fli-Hi 3 iron (Project X 6.5)
Mizuno MP-18 Fli-Hi 4,5 iron (Project X 6.5)
Mizuno MP5 6-PW (KBS C-Taper Lite 115x)
Titleist Vokey SM6 50* 54*
Taylormade Hi-Toe 60*
Scotty Cameron Newport 2 Notchback 33"

Bag 2 (Nostalgia Edition)
Taylormade M1 (2017) 9.5* (Project X Hzrdus T1100 6.5 75g)
TaylorMade M2 (2017) 3 wood
Mizuno JPX 900 Tour 3-PW
Cleveland 588 52*, 56*, 60*
Spalding T.P. Mills "Computer Milled" Putter
«13

Comments

  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 10,439 ✭✭
    No he's saying Bridgestone will benefit from the USGA stepping in and eliminating the entire marketing pyramid that Titleist and other manufacturers have based their business on for 50+ years. Titleist is clearly the all-time winner in that game so of course Bridgestone would like to see someone step in an change the rules.



    Among the minority of golf-ball buyers NOT influenced by who plays what on Tour, there's only a small difference in market share between Titleist, Taylormade, Callaway, Bridgestone, Srixon, etc.



    But among the majority of buyers who ARE influenced by Tour play, the landslide winner is Titleist with Taylormade and Callaway also in much stronger positions than the two Japanese companies.



    If USGA re-jiggers the Rules to (in their dreams) force rank-and-file golfers to play a totally different type of ball than is played on Tour then that second, majority, market dries up overnight. Bridgestone no doubt feels that they're positioned with the idiotic so-called "ball fitting" to pounce on all those hackers who used to play ProV1 and who will be looking to switch to the "cheater ball" (as the non-Tour conforming balls will be known).
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • WAxORxDCxSCWAxORxDCxSC Members Posts: 110 ✭✭
    No, he is clearly suggesting that Titleist produces a superior product and that other companies would benefit from rules restricting ball flight (thus leveling the playing field). Whatever color you want to add on top with regard to marketing is your business. I just think it’s notable that he’d question Tiger’s credibility so bluntly.
    TaylorMade M3 Driver 9.5* (Mitsubishi Tensei Pro Orange 70tx)
    TaylorMade M1 (2016) 3 Wood 15* (Mitsubishi Tensei Pro Blue 80tx)
    TaylorMade M2 Hybrid 19* (or) Mizuno MP-18 Fli-Hi 3 iron (Project X 6.5)
    Mizuno MP-18 Fli-Hi 4,5 iron (Project X 6.5)
    Mizuno MP5 6-PW (KBS C-Taper Lite 115x)
    Titleist Vokey SM6 50* 54*
    Taylormade Hi-Toe 60*
    Scotty Cameron Newport 2 Notchback 33"

    Bag 2 (Nostalgia Edition)
    Taylormade M1 (2017) 9.5* (Project X Hzrdus T1100 6.5 75g)
    TaylorMade M2 (2017) 3 wood
    Mizuno JPX 900 Tour 3-PW
    Cleveland 588 52*, 56*, 60*
    Spalding T.P. Mills "Computer Milled" Putter
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 10,439 ✭✭
    There are already rules restricting the flight of the ball and all the major brand balls are within tiny margins of being at that limit. Titleist has no distance advantage because no distance advantage is allowed under the rules.



    What is being proposed is a lower limit, not the creation of a limit where none previously existed.
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • DavePelz4DavePelz4 A golf course in the Chicago area.ClubWRX Posts: 24,670 ClubWRX
    edited Nov 22, 2017 #5
    I look forward to the day in any industry when a CEO says..."We produce an inferior product."



    And tomorrow I'm going to work the word canard into discussions.
  • NessismNessism To measure is to know... Members Posts: 18,591 ✭✭
    Titleist is afraid that setting the field back to the start will hurt the brand, and I think they are right. Titleist's success is propped up on a house of cards built on perceived quality as judged by their tour presence. Institute a new tour ball rule or change the ball rules overall and everybody will have to go back to the beginning and that will hurt the top dog and help the smaller competitors.
    Ping G400 driver w/Aldila Rogue 125 Silver 60S
    Cobra (Lexi blue) F7 5 wood w/Aldila Black 70S
    Cobra (Lexi blue) F7 Hybrid w/Aldila Kuro Kage 80S
    Ping G410 irons w/Recoil 95S (i200 backups)
    Ping Glide 50/55/60 wedges w/Recoil 110S
    Ping Anser/Arna putter - the "real deal!"
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 10,439 ✭✭
    edited Nov 22, 2017 #7
    Nessism wrote:


    Titleist is afraid that setting the field back to the start will hurt the brand, and I think they are right. Titleist's success is propped up on a house of cards built on perceived quality as judged by their tour presence. Institute a new tour ball rule or change the ball rules overall and everybody will have to go back to the beginning and that will hurt the top dog and help the smaller competitors.




    Titleist was not hurt when golf balls were "set back to the beginning" by the advent of multipiece urethane Tour balls. They were the dominant brand in the "Balata or rock" days and they continued their dominance in the modern era.



    And they would not be hurt by an across-the-board reduction in ball flight distance tomorrow.



    The only thing that would harm Ttleist's position would be if somehow retail golfers were prevented from playing the same ball they see played on Tour.



    Mike Davis seems to think there's a change in the works that would restrict Tour (and other elite) player's ball performance to such a major extent that anyone else would have to be an idiot to play the same ball as used on Tour. I personally can not envision even USGA being that stupid but I've underestimated them before.



    If they actually pull that off it would be a disaster for Titleist no doubt. Maybe, like friend Nessism Mike Davis hates Titleist so passionately that he thinks anything that harms Titleist is therefore good for the game.
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • WAxORxDCxSCWAxORxDCxSC Members Posts: 110 ✭✭
    Uilhein is a master marketer. According to Wikipedia he became the national sales manager within a year at Titleist. This a a perfect example of how he operates...it’s brilliant. Again, the reason this is notable — in my opinion — is his willingness to impugn Tiger’s motivation while doing so.
    TaylorMade M3 Driver 9.5* (Mitsubishi Tensei Pro Orange 70tx)
    TaylorMade M1 (2016) 3 Wood 15* (Mitsubishi Tensei Pro Blue 80tx)
    TaylorMade M2 Hybrid 19* (or) Mizuno MP-18 Fli-Hi 3 iron (Project X 6.5)
    Mizuno MP-18 Fli-Hi 4,5 iron (Project X 6.5)
    Mizuno MP5 6-PW (KBS C-Taper Lite 115x)
    Titleist Vokey SM6 50* 54*
    Taylormade Hi-Toe 60*
    Scotty Cameron Newport 2 Notchback 33"

    Bag 2 (Nostalgia Edition)
    Taylormade M1 (2017) 9.5* (Project X Hzrdus T1100 6.5 75g)
    TaylorMade M2 (2017) 3 wood
    Mizuno JPX 900 Tour 3-PW
    Cleveland 588 52*, 56*, 60*
    Spalding T.P. Mills "Computer Milled" Putter
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 10,439 ✭✭
    If you look at the mix of products Tiger has endorsed since his fall from grace, he hardly needs any "impugning" by anyone does he? His post-career life has been self-impugning.
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • NessismNessism To measure is to know... Members Posts: 18,591 ✭✭

    Nessism wrote:


    Titleist is afraid that setting the field back to the start will hurt the brand, and I think they are right. Titleist's success is propped up on a house of cards built on perceived quality as judged by their tour presence. Institute a new tour ball rule or change the ball rules overall and everybody will have to go back to the beginning and that will hurt the top dog and help the smaller competitors.




    Titleist was not hurt when golf balls were "set back to the beginning" by the advent of multipiece urethane Tour balls. They were the dominant brand in the "Balata or rock" days and they continued their dominance in the modern era.



    And they would not be hurt by an across-the-board reduction in ball flight distance tomorrow.



    The only thing that would harm Ttleist's position would be if somehow retail golfers were prevented from playing the same ball they see played on Tour.



    Mike Davis seems to think there's a change in the works that would restrict Tour (and other elite) player's ball performance to such a major extent that anyone else would have to be an idiot to play the same ball as used on Tour. I personally can not envision even USGA being that stupid but I've underestimated them before.



    If they actually pull that off it would be a disaster for Titleist no doubt. Maybe, like friend Nessism Mike Davis hates Titleist so passionately that he thinks anything that harms Titleist is therefore good for the game.




    A "tour ball" rule would indeed upset the apple cart at Titleist. The success of their entire company is based off tour success and perceived superiority therefor. Humm...
    Ping G400 driver w/Aldila Rogue 125 Silver 60S
    Cobra (Lexi blue) F7 5 wood w/Aldila Black 70S
    Cobra (Lexi blue) F7 Hybrid w/Aldila Kuro Kage 80S
    Ping G410 irons w/Recoil 95S (i200 backups)
    Ping Glide 50/55/60 wedges w/Recoil 110S
    Ping Anser/Arna putter - the "real deal!"
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 10,439 ✭✭
    Nessism wrote:


    Nessism wrote:


    Titleist is afraid that setting the field back to the start will hurt the brand, and I think they are right. Titleist's success is propped up on a house of cards built on perceived quality as judged by their tour presence. Institute a new tour ball rule or change the ball rules overall and everybody will have to go back to the beginning and that will hurt the top dog and help the smaller competitors.




    Titleist was not hurt when golf balls were "set back to the beginning" by the advent of multipiece urethane Tour balls. They were the dominant brand in the "Balata or rock" days and they continued their dominance in the modern era.



    And they would not be hurt by an across-the-board reduction in ball flight distance tomorrow.



    The only thing that would harm Ttleist's position would be if somehow retail golfers were prevented from playing the same ball they see played on Tour.



    Mike Davis seems to think there's a change in the works that would restrict Tour (and other elite) player's ball performance to such a major extent that anyone else would have to be an idiot to play the same ball as used on Tour. I personally can not envision even USGA being that stupid but I've underestimated them before.



    If they actually pull that off it would be a disaster for Titleist no doubt. Maybe, like friend Nessism Mike Davis hates Titleist so passionately that he thinks anything that harms Titleist is therefore good for the game.




    A "tour ball" rule would indeed upset the apple cart at Titleist. The success of their entire company is based off tour success and perceived superiority therefor. Humm...




    Therefore you're all for it. Because it would hurt Titleist, right?
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • Matt JMatt J Members Posts: 8,735 ✭✭
    edited Nov 22, 2017 #12


    No he's saying Bridgestone will benefit from the USGA stepping in and eliminating the entire marketing pyramid that Titleist and other manufacturers have based their business on for 50+ years. Titleist is clearly the all-time winner in that game so of course Bridgestone would like to see someone step in an change the rules.



    Among the minority of golf-ball buyers NOT influenced by who plays what on Tour, there's only a small difference in market share between Titleist, Taylormade, Callaway, Bridgestone, Srixon, etc.



    But among the majority of buyers who ARE influenced by Tour play, the landslide winner is Titleist with Taylormade and Callaway also in much stronger positions than the two Japanese companies.



    If USGA re-jiggers the Rules to (in their dreams) force rank-and-file golfers to play a totally different type of ball than is played on Tour then that second, majority, market dries up overnight. Bridgestone no doubt feels that they're positioned with the idiotic so-called "ball fitting" to pounce on all those hackers who used to play ProV1 and who will be looking to switch to the "cheater ball" (as the non-Tour conforming balls will be known).




    I'd love to know how you ascertained who is and isn't "influenced" by the tour?



    Whether they play Titleist?







  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 10,439 ✭✭
    edited Nov 22, 2017 #13
    I deduce the influence of the Tour on buyers because the manufacturers spend untold millions of dollars placing their products on Tour for just that reason. Surely they would not do it if it were ineffective.



    I deduce that Tour-influenced buyers are the majority because overall golf ball sales are almost directly proportional to Tour pressence.



    I deduce the existence of a non-Tour-influenced set of buyer by the fact that plenty of balls still get sold by brands with little or no Tour success.
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • Matt JMatt J Members Posts: 8,735 ✭✭


    I deduce the influence of the Tour on buyers because the manufacturers spend untold millions of dollars placing their products on Tour for just that reason. Surely they would not do it if it were ineffective.



    I deduce that Tour-influenced buyers are the majority because overall golf ball sales are almost directly proportional to Tour pressence.



    I deduce the existence of a non-Tour-influenced set of buyer by the fact that plenty of balls still get sold by brands with little or no Tour success.




    That's ignoring that they are less expensive and that many don't feel they have the club head speed or consistency to utilize the "best" ball.



    It's an interesting dilemma as the quality of other balls has quickly caught Titleist and Titleist actually pays less than other OEMs to put their ball in play. Hard to say if Rors, JDay, TW, and DJ choose their ball based on performance or money.



    Spieth and Thomas had a pretty good year sticking with the best ball in golf.
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 10,439 ✭✭
    edited Nov 22, 2017 #15
    If all that mattered was the quality of the golf ball, then the factories in Korea and Taiwan would just crank out generic 4-piece cast urethane balls to be packaged 50 to the plain white box marked "GOLF BALLS". Churning out a ball that comes within spitting distance of the max performance allowed under the current rules has become a widely-disseminated capability. The retail cost would be probably a $79 for a box of 50 or something like that.



    Everything else is brand preference and marketing.



    Thinking of it that way, an entire revamping of the golf ball spec would only suit the existing big-name companies if it specified an entirely different method of construction. That way they could figure out a way to implement new design principles and it would be a decade or so before the white-label Asian factories could catch up. Only problem? It would suck for those of us actually buying and using the product.
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • ws6ws6 Pacific Dunes Members Posts: 2,307 ✭✭


    Titleist was not hurt when golf balls were "set back to the beginning" by the advent of multipiece urethane Tour balls.




    How much did Titleist pay out in lawsuit settlements to Callaway and Bridgestone?
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 10,439 ✭✭
    ws6 wrote:



    Titleist was not hurt when golf balls were "set back to the beginning" by the advent of multipiece urethane Tour balls.




    How much did Titleist pay out in lawsuit settlements to Callaway and Bridgestone?




    Hardly enough to even register on their P&L statement.
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • DrudershDrudersh ClubWRX Posts: 2,950 ClubWRX
    ws6 wrote:



    Titleist was not hurt when golf balls were "set back to the beginning" by the advent of multipiece urethane Tour balls.




    How much did Titleist pay out in lawsuit settlements to Callaway and Bridgestone?




    Wasn't the ProV1 the original multi-piece urethane tour ball? It would be difficult to be set-back by technology you invented, no?
    Ping G 10.5 Tour 65s
    Ping G 14.5 Tour 80x
    Titleist 716 T-MB 3 Iron AD DI 95x
    Ping Anser Forged Project X 6.0
    Ping Glide 50*SS, 54*SS, 58*SS Project X 6.0
    Odyssey Versa 2-Ball
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 10,439 ✭✭
    Drudersh wrote:

    ws6 wrote:



    Titleist was not hurt when golf balls were "set back to the beginning" by the advent of multipiece urethane Tour balls.




    How much did Titleist pay out in lawsuit settlements to Callaway and Bridgestone?




    Wasn't the ProV1 the original multi-piece urethane tour ball? It would be difficult to be set-back by technology you invented, no?




    No it was not. Titleist were slightly late to the party.



    What happened when Titleist came along (a couple years after other solid-core, multipiece, urethane balls were being used on Tour) was that almost immediately it was adopted by hundreds of Tour players.



    Titleist was the dominant leader in Tour presence. Once they released a modern ball to their staff players and that ball starting winning tournaments, the whole concept was legitimized overnight.



    Established market leaders are almost never the first with innovations. Apple never puts any feature in an iPhone that hasn't previously shown up (in some form or another) in a Samsung or whatever. ProV1 is the iPhone of Tour balls, not the first but the most successful.
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • NessismNessism To measure is to know... Members Posts: 18,591 ✭✭


    Therefore you're all for it. Because it would hurt Titleist, right?




    I'd love to see Titleist's bubble burst. I'm an engineer and align myself with products that offer quality and value. Titleist may have the quality but their value is dubious at best.
    Ping G400 driver w/Aldila Rogue 125 Silver 60S
    Cobra (Lexi blue) F7 5 wood w/Aldila Black 70S
    Cobra (Lexi blue) F7 Hybrid w/Aldila Kuro Kage 80S
    Ping G410 irons w/Recoil 95S (i200 backups)
    Ping Glide 50/55/60 wedges w/Recoil 110S
    Ping Anser/Arna putter - the "real deal!"
  • Matt JMatt J Members Posts: 8,735 ✭✭

    Drudersh wrote:

    ws6 wrote:



    Titleist was not hurt when golf balls were "set back to the beginning" by the advent of multipiece urethane Tour balls.




    How much did Titleist pay out in lawsuit settlements to Callaway and Bridgestone?




    Wasn't the ProV1 the original multi-piece urethane tour ball? It would be difficult to be set-back by technology you invented, no?




    No it was not. Titleist were slightly late to the party.



    What happened when Titleist came along (a couple years after other solid-core, multipiece, urethane balls were being used on Tour) was that almost immediately it was adopted by hundreds of Tour players.



    Titleist was the dominant leader in Tour presence. Once they released a modern ball to their staff players and that ball starting winning tournaments, the whole concept was legitimized overnight.



    Established market leaders are almost never the first with innovations. Apple never puts any feature in an iPhone that hasn't previously shown up (in some form or another) in a Samsung or whatever. ProV1 is the iPhone of Tour balls, not the first but the most successful.




    Not true. Are these alternative facts?



    The iPhone had the first touch screen of any handheld device.



    Wow.
  • new2g0lfnew2g0lf Members Posts: 3,427 ✭✭
    Nessism wrote:


    Titleist is afraid that setting the field back to the start will hurt the brand, and I think they are right. Titleist's success is propped up on a house of cards built on perceived quality as judged by their tour presence. Institute a new tour ball rule or change the ball rules overall and everybody will have to go back to the beginning and that will hurt the top dog and help the smaller competitors.




    Of course he is, who wants to produce and sell a golf ball that is clearly inferior to previous iterations. If you believe Titleist has an edge in terms of their golf ball technology and performance, the roll back puts them back with the pack.



    Imagine the ad in 2018, "Titleist Pro V1, shorter and less straight than last years model, guaranteed to increase your scores or your money back."
    Driver - Home Ping G410 + 9.5*   Away Ping G400 Max 10*
    Woods - XXIO 10 3W
    Hybrids - XXIO 10 3H, 4H, 5H
    Irons - Home - PXG Gen 2 0311P 5-SW   Away - Callaway Apex CF-19 5-SW
    Wedge - PXG 58* 
    Putter - Seemore Nashville mFGP2 SS Mallet Black
    Ball - KSig, TM TP5X, Snell MTB
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 10,439 ✭✭
    edited Nov 22, 2017 #23
    Matt J wrote:


    Drudersh wrote:

    ws6 wrote:



    Titleist was not hurt when golf balls were "set back to the beginning" by the advent of multipiece urethane Tour balls.




    How much did Titleist pay out in lawsuit settlements to Callaway and Bridgestone?




    Wasn't the ProV1 the original multi-piece urethane tour ball? It would be difficult to be set-back by technology you invented, no?




    No it was not. Titleist were slightly late to the party.



    What happened when Titleist came along (a couple years after other solid-core, multipiece, urethane balls were being used on Tour) was that almost immediately it was adopted by hundreds of Tour players.



    Titleist was the dominant leader in Tour presence. Once they released a modern ball to their staff players and that ball starting winning tournaments, the whole concept was legitimized overnight.



    Established market leaders are almost never the first with innovations. Apple never puts any feature in an iPhone that hasn't previously shown up (in some form or another) in a Samsung or whatever. ProV1 is the iPhone of Tour balls, not the first but the most successful.




    Not true. Are these alternative facts?



    The iPhone had the first touch screen of any handheld device.



    Wow.




    An excellent easy-to-read history of the iPhone is called, "The One Device". Check it out.



    https://www.amazon.c...=the one device



    Here's a link to a description of what is generally considered the first touch-screen phone.



    http://mashable.com/2012/11/09/touchscreen-history/#PgosFkfzhsqI
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • trackcoach13trackcoach13 Members Posts: 991 ✭✭
    Matt J wrote:


    Drudersh wrote:

    ws6 wrote:



    Titleist was not hurt when golf balls were "set back to the beginning" by the advent of multipiece urethane Tour balls.




    How much did Titleist pay out in lawsuit settlements to Callaway and Bridgestone?




    Wasn't the ProV1 the original multi-piece urethane tour ball? It would be difficult to be set-back by technology you invented, no?




    No it was not. Titleist were slightly late to the party.



    What happened when Titleist came along (a couple years after other solid-core, multipiece, urethane balls were being used on Tour) was that almost immediately it was adopted by hundreds of Tour players.



    Titleist was the dominant leader in Tour presence. Once they released a modern ball to their staff players and that ball starting winning tournaments, the whole concept was legitimized overnight.



    Established market leaders are almost never the first with innovations. Apple never puts any feature in an iPhone that hasn't previously shown up (in some form or another) in a Samsung or whatever. ProV1 is the iPhone of Tour balls, not the first but the most successful.




    Not true. Are these alternative facts?



    The iPhone had the first touch screen of any handheld device.



    Wow.




    LOL
    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Driver: Cobra F9 w/ Aldila NV 2KXV Green 65 Stiff
    3W: Titleist 917F2 w/Fujikura Speeder Pro Tour Spec 84 Stiff [/font]

    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]2I: Srixon Z U65 18 Degree w/Miyazaki Kaula 7s
    Irons: Wilson FG Tour v6 4-GW DG S300 AMT
    Wedge: 56/11 Wilson FG Tour PMP Raw Tour Grind[/font]

    Wedge: Vokey SM6 60-12 K-Grind
    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Putter: [/font]Odyssey O-WORKS Red Marxman
  • trackcoach13trackcoach13 Members Posts: 991 ✭✭

    Drudersh wrote:

    ws6 wrote:



    Titleist was not hurt when golf balls were "set back to the beginning" by the advent of multipiece urethane Tour balls.




    How much did Titleist pay out in lawsuit settlements to Callaway and Bridgestone?




    Wasn't the ProV1 the original multi-piece urethane tour ball? It would be difficult to be set-back by technology you invented, no?




    No it was not. Titleist were slightly late to the party.



    What happened when Titleist came along (a couple years after other solid-core, multipiece, urethane balls were being used on Tour) was that almost immediately it was adopted by hundreds of Tour players.



    Titleist was the dominant leader in Tour presence. Once they released a modern ball to their staff players and that ball starting winning tournaments, the whole concept was legitimized overnight.



    Established market leaders are almost never the first with innovations. Apple never puts any feature in an iPhone that hasn't previously shown up (in some form or another) in a Samsung or whatever. ProV1 is the iPhone of Tour balls, not the first but the most successful.




    Wasn't the Strata the first sold-core, multi layer urethane covered ball back in mid-1990's?
    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Driver: Cobra F9 w/ Aldila NV 2KXV Green 65 Stiff
    3W: Titleist 917F2 w/Fujikura Speeder Pro Tour Spec 84 Stiff [/font]

    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]2I: Srixon Z U65 18 Degree w/Miyazaki Kaula 7s
    Irons: Wilson FG Tour v6 4-GW DG S300 AMT
    Wedge: 56/11 Wilson FG Tour PMP Raw Tour Grind[/font]

    Wedge: Vokey SM6 60-12 K-Grind
    [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Putter: [/font]Odyssey O-WORKS Red Marxman
  • NessismNessism To measure is to know... Members Posts: 18,591 ✭✭
    new2g0lf wrote:


    If you believe Titleist has an edge in terms of their golf ball technology and performance, the roll back puts them back with the pack.






    Key reference highlighted.



    Personally, I don't believe. Which is why I don't buy Titleist balls.
    Ping G400 driver w/Aldila Rogue 125 Silver 60S
    Cobra (Lexi blue) F7 5 wood w/Aldila Black 70S
    Cobra (Lexi blue) F7 Hybrid w/Aldila Kuro Kage 80S
    Ping G410 irons w/Recoil 95S (i200 backups)
    Ping Glide 50/55/60 wedges w/Recoil 110S
    Ping Anser/Arna putter - the "real deal!"
  • KYMARKYMAR Members Posts: 13,257 ✭✭
    When asked to comment about Uihleins assertion that Tiger woods is just a shill for Bridgestone, Phil Mickelson said, "I'll be happy to respond to that but first, let me tell you about the game changing technology that can only be found in the new Rogue driver by Callaway golf."
    Callaway XR Pro Attas Tour SPX X
    Taylormade Tour issue 15* V Steel 3 wood
    Hybrid undecided
    Cobra Amp Cell Pro's (All MB) 4-GW Project X Rifle 6.0
    Cleveland CG15 56 and 60
    White Hot 6 Long Neck
  • BY#99BY#99 Members Posts: 329 ✭✭
    In my opinion Titleist balls are quality, however, no better/worse than other companies premium offerings. To me it is simple, Titleist pays the most in player sponsors to play their ball. Over time people want to play what the pros play then Friends talk and Titlesist is the winner. I would venture to say if you gave players 4 balls all painted white (Titleist, callaway, TaylorMade, Bridgestone) and asked them to pick their favorite it would most likely be divided pretty evenly. If Ttileist starting paying players to play their drivers at a higher rate than Callaway or TaylorMade and did so for a few year, they would end up being the #1 driver
  • new2g0lfnew2g0lf Members Posts: 3,427 ✭✭
    Whether it's the Titleist CEO or TM, Callaway or Snell, no one wants to have to develop or market a product that performs worse than its previous model.
    Driver - Home Ping G410 + 9.5*   Away Ping G400 Max 10*
    Woods - XXIO 10 3W
    Hybrids - XXIO 10 3H, 4H, 5H
    Irons - Home - PXG Gen 2 0311P 5-SW   Away - Callaway Apex CF-19 5-SW
    Wedge - PXG 58* 
    Putter - Seemore Nashville mFGP2 SS Mallet Black
    Ball - KSig, TM TP5X, Snell MTB
  • deetsaldeetsal deetsal Members Posts: 1,380 ✭✭
    Here's the thing, Titlist released a new ball every two years. Callaway "improves their ball every 6 months, over the last 3-4 years or more. It only make sense that they now produce a far superior ball, right? That being said I play Maxfli U6 Tour Soft, fine ball for the $$$.
  • NessismNessism To measure is to know... Members Posts: 18,591 ✭✭
    Titleist has the most to loose since they built their reputation on tour usage. Create a new ball for the tour and the direct association is gone, although most people are so non tech savvy they won't know the difference.
    Ping G400 driver w/Aldila Rogue 125 Silver 60S
    Cobra (Lexi blue) F7 5 wood w/Aldila Black 70S
    Cobra (Lexi blue) F7 Hybrid w/Aldila Kuro Kage 80S
    Ping G410 irons w/Recoil 95S (i200 backups)
    Ping Glide 50/55/60 wedges w/Recoil 110S
    Ping Anser/Arna putter - the "real deal!"
Sign In or Register to comment.