Titleist golf ball study; Finally, some facts added to the debate

1131415161719»

Comments

  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,307 ✭✭
    J13 wrote:


    I don't think it benefits anyone to pay $4 for a golf ball. As for Titleist they are the most expensive premium ball and have worked really hard to make sure people know that. It worked for them for a long time. Perceived value is a strong marketing tactic. Nowadays people are seeking value hence why so many companies are hitting the $30-35 price point for a premium urethane ball.




    Just for the record, premium ball list prices;



    Titleist $49.99

    Bridgestone $44.99

    Maxfli $44.99

    Nike was $45.99

    Srixon $44.99

    Wilson Staff $49.99



    If you want a premium ball, the $5 extra for PROV1 isn't going to make you buy other brands.
  • mahoniemahonie Members Posts: 2,438 ✭✭

    mahonie wrote:



    Titleist are by far the most popular multipiece urethane ball on all the professional Tours and the most popular in retail sales. Those two facts are not unconnected.



    As the market stands right now (and has for decades) Bridgestone has no chance of significant market share growth relative to Titleist in that profitable segment. The public does buy golf balls based on what is used on Tour. That is demonstrably an effective marketing strategy as it has been for a long, long time.



    So Bridgestone would love for the Big, Bad USGA (or their Big, Bad PGA Tour) to step in and force a disconnect between the balls played on Tour and the balls played by retail golfers. If you competitor has you beat cold using one strategy, of course you'd like somebody to stamp out that strategy by the stroke of a pen.



    It has NOTHING to do with ball performance. All the major brands of multipiece urethane balls perform to within a tiny fraction of the maximum allowed under the Rules.



    Bridgestone is the equivalent of a child losing at a game who wants Mommy to step in and change the rules for him in mid-game.



    Bridgestone's idea is to get their mouthpieces like Tiger to cause a groundswell of public pressure, forcing USGA to say basically, "Attention everyone! Starting next year there will be a ridiculously poor performing ball used by all professionals. Unless you want to give up 20% of your distance you'll have to buy the special ball for non-professional play". Then Bridgestone can fight it out in a brand new market that's never existed before at least have a vain hope of catching up with Titleist. Probably by continuing their idiotic "ball fitting" type thing.




    You do realise that the only reason that Titleist is in the position they are in with the ball is because they were on the brink of losing the whole of the ball market and resorted to stealing patents from Spalding (Callaway) and Bridgestone to develop the Pro V1? The settlements were made out of court so it is unlikely that we will ever know what the terms were. There was talk of sharing technologies and patents but it is my guess that Titleist have got all of their eggs in the Pro V basket and do not have anything else. If the Pro V is compromised, Titleist will be fatally wounded and that is why they vigorously fight any challenge. I would go so far to say that I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some link, buried down very deep, between someone in power at the PGA Tour and Titleist and they work together to protect their mutual interests (i.e. cash in the pocket).




    The title for your story should be something like "How I dreamed up history and paired it with my wildest imagination for what might happen".



    Titleist dominates due to their brand. 99% of all golfers can't tell the difference between a PROv1 and other premium balls, but PROV1 has 50% of the sales. That's due to brand.




    It’s well documented how Titleist were due to go down the tubes when 47 of their staff pros threatened to move to the Rule 35 ball at the end of 2000 led by Lefty unless Titleist came up with a ball that was comparable. The only way out of oblivion for them was to develop the Pro V1 which they did by employing the guy who invented the patents while he was at Spalding (who still owned the patents). They got the Pro V1 to the pros in December 2000 and it won first time out and averted the crisis. It was called a ‘business miracle’ in court and the rest is history. They continued to cream the market at the expense of the rightful owners of the patents until December 2008 when an injunction was granted against the selling of the Pro V1. By that time, they had obviously secured the ‘brand.’ It’s just a shame the ‘brand’ is founded on such a dishonest approach.
    Callaway Big Bertha Alpha Fubuki ZT Stiff
    MD Golf Superstrong 3-wood UST Proforce 65 Stiff
    Wilson Staff FG Tour M3 21* Hybrid Aldila RIP Stiff
    Mizuno MP4 4-PW DG S300
    Wilson Staff PMP wedges 50/54/58 KBS Hi-Rev 2.0
    Radius Classic 8
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,911 ✭✭
    Tragic!
    “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.” 
  • TsarBombaTsarBomba Members Posts: 698
    Here is another way of looking at this.



    When a rule is put in place to further restrict the ball, who would be in the best position to engineer a solution most rapidly? However the rule is administered, it will take some talent to recreate a ball that optimizes flight/launch charactoriatics right at the limit, that works well for a variety of players. This is not as easy as you think. Takes money to solve quickly and come out ahead instantly. The biggest budget wins this, at least initially. It will be the small guys thay take a bit to catch up. I think Titliest comes out ahead.



    And again to reiterate, this hypothetical change would be disastrous to the game in general. Unrelated to Titleist position in all of this..
  • J13J13 Dad golf Members Posts: 15,386 ✭✭

    J13 wrote:


    I don't think it benefits anyone to pay $4 for a golf ball. As for Titleist they are the most expensive premium ball and have worked really hard to make sure people know that. It worked for them for a long time. Perceived value is a strong marketing tactic. Nowadays people are seeking value hence why so many companies are hitting the $30-35 price point for a premium urethane ball.




    Just for the record, premium ball list prices;



    Titleist $49.99

    Bridgestone $44.99

    Maxfli $44.99

    Nike was $45.99

    Srixon $44.99

    Wilson Staff $49.99



    If you want a premium ball, the $5 extra for PROV1 isn't going to make you buy other brands.




    Did you really just reference premium balls and include Maxfli and Wilson staff but leave out Taylormade and Callaway?
    Callaway Epic Flash Triple Diamond 9* / Project X HZRDUS Black Smoke 70 6.5
    TBD
    Srixon 745's 4-PW / Modus Tour 120 TX
    Callaway MD3 50, 54, 60 / Modus 125
    Odyssey White Hot Versa #6 Tour issue
    Srixon Zstar XV


    GolfWRX WITB Podcast - Irons reveal 11/14/18 http://www.golfwrx.c...utm_content=sub

    GolfWrx WITB Podcast 2017 : http://www.golfwrx.com/482668/tgtg-golfwrx-forum-member-j13-talks-witb-and-club-testing/

    WITB- http://www.golfwrx.c.../page__st__1590

    INSTAGRAM- @Jminis13
  • storm319storm319 Members Posts: 3,769 ✭✭
    mahonie wrote:


    mahonie wrote:



    Titleist are by far the most popular multipiece urethane ball on all the professional Tours and the most popular in retail sales. Those two facts are not unconnected.



    As the market stands right now (and has for decades) Bridgestone has no chance of significant market share growth relative to Titleist in that profitable segment. The public does buy golf balls based on what is used on Tour. That is demonstrably an effective marketing strategy as it has been for a long, long time.



    So Bridgestone would love for the Big, Bad USGA (or their Big, Bad PGA Tour) to step in and force a disconnect between the balls played on Tour and the balls played by retail golfers. If you competitor has you beat cold using one strategy, of course you'd like somebody to stamp out that strategy by the stroke of a pen.



    It has NOTHING to do with ball performance. All the major brands of multipiece urethane balls perform to within a tiny fraction of the maximum allowed under the Rules.



    Bridgestone is the equivalent of a child losing at a game who wants Mommy to step in and change the rules for him in mid-game.



    Bridgestone's idea is to get their mouthpieces like Tiger to cause a groundswell of public pressure, forcing USGA to say basically, "Attention everyone! Starting next year there will be a ridiculously poor performing ball used by all professionals. Unless you want to give up 20% of your distance you'll have to buy the special ball for non-professional play". Then Bridgestone can fight it out in a brand new market that's never existed before at least have a vain hope of catching up with Titleist. Probably by continuing their idiotic "ball fitting" type thing.




    You do realise that the only reason that Titleist is in the position they are in with the ball is because they were on the brink of losing the whole of the ball market and resorted to stealing patents from Spalding (Callaway) and Bridgestone to develop the Pro V1? The settlements were made out of court so it is unlikely that we will ever know what the terms were. There was talk of sharing technologies and patents but it is my guess that Titleist have got all of their eggs in the Pro V basket and do not have anything else. If the Pro V is compromised, Titleist will be fatally wounded and that is why they vigorously fight any challenge. I would go so far to say that I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some link, buried down very deep, between someone in power at the PGA Tour and Titleist and they work together to protect their mutual interests (i.e. cash in the pocket).




    The title for your story should be something like "How I dreamed up history and paired it with my wildest imagination for what might happen".



    Titleist dominates due to their brand. 99% of all golfers can't tell the difference between a PROv1 and other premium balls, but PROV1 has 50% of the sales. That's due to brand.




    It’s well documented how Titleist were due to go down the tubes when 47 of their staff pros threatened to move to the Rule 35 ball at the end of 2000 led by Lefty unless Titleist came up with a ball that was comparable. The only way out of oblivion for them was to develop the Pro V1 which they did by employing the guy who invented the patents while he was at Spalding (who still owned the patents). They got the Pro V1 to the pros in December 2000 and it won first time out and averted the crisis. It was called a ‘business miracle’ in court and the rest is history. They continued to cream the market at the expense of the rightful owners of the patents until December 2008 when an injunction was granted against the selling of the Pro V1. By that time, they had obviously secured the ‘brand.’ It’s just a shame the ‘brand’ is founded on such a dishonest approach.




    The US Patent Office constantly awards patents that overlap with existing patents or similar pending applications and that causes quite a bit of litigation.



    The fact that Titleist won the final ruling in appeals absolves the complaint. Both companies eventually decided to put the battle to rest with a settlement to trade IP licenses. As previously stated, this horse has long been dead.
  • mahoniemahonie Members Posts: 2,438 ✭✭
    storm319 wrote:

    mahonie wrote:


    mahonie wrote:



    Titleist are by far the most popular multipiece urethane ball on all the professional Tours and the most popular in retail sales. Those two facts are not unconnected.



    As the market stands right now (and has for decades) Bridgestone has no chance of significant market share growth relative to Titleist in that profitable segment. The public does buy golf balls based on what is used on Tour. That is demonstrably an effective marketing strategy as it has been for a long, long time.



    So Bridgestone would love for the Big, Bad USGA (or their Big, Bad PGA Tour) to step in and force a disconnect between the balls played on Tour and the balls played by retail golfers. If you competitor has you beat cold using one strategy, of course you'd like somebody to stamp out that strategy by the stroke of a pen.



    It has NOTHING to do with ball performance. All the major brands of multipiece urethane balls perform to within a tiny fraction of the maximum allowed under the Rules.



    Bridgestone is the equivalent of a child losing at a game who wants Mommy to step in and change the rules for him in mid-game.



    Bridgestone's idea is to get their mouthpieces like Tiger to cause a groundswell of public pressure, forcing USGA to say basically, "Attention everyone! Starting next year there will be a ridiculously poor performing ball used by all professionals. Unless you want to give up 20% of your distance you'll have to buy the special ball for non-professional play". Then Bridgestone can fight it out in a brand new market that's never existed before at least have a vain hope of catching up with Titleist. Probably by continuing their idiotic "ball fitting" type thing.




    You do realise that the only reason that Titleist is in the position they are in with the ball is because they were on the brink of losing the whole of the ball market and resorted to stealing patents from Spalding (Callaway) and Bridgestone to develop the Pro V1? The settlements were made out of court so it is unlikely that we will ever know what the terms were. There was talk of sharing technologies and patents but it is my guess that Titleist have got all of their eggs in the Pro V basket and do not have anything else. If the Pro V is compromised, Titleist will be fatally wounded and that is why they vigorously fight any challenge. I would go so far to say that I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some link, buried down very deep, between someone in power at the PGA Tour and Titleist and they work together to protect their mutual interests (i.e. cash in the pocket).




    The title for your story should be something like "How I dreamed up history and paired it with my wildest imagination for what might happen".



    Titleist dominates due to their brand. 99% of all golfers can't tell the difference between a PROv1 and other premium balls, but PROV1 has 50% of the sales. That's due to brand.




    It’s well documented how Titleist were due to go down the tubes when 47 of their staff pros threatened to move to the Rule 35 ball at the end of 2000 led by Lefty unless Titleist came up with a ball that was comparable. The only way out of oblivion for them was to develop the Pro V1 which they did by employing the guy who invented the patents while he was at Spalding (who still owned the patents). They got the Pro V1 to the pros in December 2000 and it won first time out and averted the crisis. It was called a ‘business miracle’ in court and the rest is history. They continued to cream the market at the expense of the rightful owners of the patents until December 2008 when an injunction was granted against the selling of the Pro V1. By that time, they had obviously secured the ‘brand.’ It’s just a shame the ‘brand’ is founded on such a dishonest approach.




    The US Patent Office constantly awards patents that overlap with existing patents or similar pending applications and that causes quite a bit of litigation.



    The fact that Titleist won the final ruling in appeals absolves the complaint. Both companies eventually decided to put the battle to rest with a settlement to trade IP licenses. As previously stated, this horse has long been dead.




    It’s a fair point. Perhaps its just my over-sensitive reaction to cases of injustice but when I was reading the history of the case, Titleist came across as the Volkswagen of the golf industry.
    Callaway Big Bertha Alpha Fubuki ZT Stiff
    MD Golf Superstrong 3-wood UST Proforce 65 Stiff
    Wilson Staff FG Tour M3 21* Hybrid Aldila RIP Stiff
    Mizuno MP4 4-PW DG S300
    Wilson Staff PMP wedges 50/54/58 KBS Hi-Rev 2.0
    Radius Classic 8
  • grm24grm24 Western PAMembers Posts: 3,114 ✭✭
    mahonie wrote:


    It’s well documented how Titleist were due to go down the tubes when 47 of their staff pros threatened to move to the Rule 35 ball at the end of 2000 led by Lefty unless Titleist came up with a ball that was comparable. The only way out of oblivion for them was to develop the Pro V1 which they did by employing the guy who invented the patents while he was at Spalding (who still owned the patents). They got the Pro V1 to the pros in December 2000 and it won first time out and averted the crisis. It was called a ‘business miracle’ in court and the rest is history.
    Callaway had to license technology/patents from Titleist to legally manufacture the Rule 35 then their CTU golf balls. Nobody ever seems to discuss that. FWIW Titleist got the Pro-V1 to their players in October of 2000 in Las Vegas which was won by Billy Andrade. Bridgestone also sued Callaway over the Rule 35 ball.
  • J13J13 Dad golf Members Posts: 15,386 ✭✭
    edited Mar 7, 2018 #550
    grm24 wrote:

    mahonie wrote:


    It’s well documented how Titleist were due to go down the tubes when 47 of their staff pros threatened to move to the Rule 35 ball at the end of 2000 led by Lefty unless Titleist came up with a ball that was comparable. The only way out of oblivion for them was to develop the Pro V1 which they did by employing the guy who invented the patents while he was at Spalding (who still owned the patents). They got the Pro V1 to the pros in December 2000 and it won first time out and averted the crisis. It was called a ‘business miracle’ in court and the rest is history.
    Callaway had to license technology/patents from Titleist to legally manufacture the Rule 35 then their CTU golf balls. Nobody ever seems to discuss that. FWIW Titleist got the Pro-V1 to their players in October of 2000 in Las Vegas which was won by Billy Andrade. Bridgestone also sued Callaway over the Rule 35 ball.




    And Srixon owns the most ball patents out of any OEM. Titleist pays them as do others to license their patents. Doesn't matter though its all about the $$$
    Callaway Epic Flash Triple Diamond 9* / Project X HZRDUS Black Smoke 70 6.5
    TBD
    Srixon 745's 4-PW / Modus Tour 120 TX
    Callaway MD3 50, 54, 60 / Modus 125
    Odyssey White Hot Versa #6 Tour issue
    Srixon Zstar XV


    GolfWRX WITB Podcast - Irons reveal 11/14/18 http://www.golfwrx.c...utm_content=sub

    GolfWrx WITB Podcast 2017 : http://www.golfwrx.com/482668/tgtg-golfwrx-forum-member-j13-talks-witb-and-club-testing/

    WITB- http://www.golfwrx.c.../page__st__1590

    INSTAGRAM- @Jminis13
  • ShilgyShilgy Members Posts: 11,398 ✭✭
    edited Mar 10, 2018 #551
    J13 wrote:


    J13 wrote:


    I don't think it benefits anyone to pay $4 for a golf ball. As for Titleist they are the most expensive premium ball and have worked really hard to make sure people know that. It worked for them for a long time. Perceived value is a strong marketing tactic. Nowadays people are seeking value hence why so many companies are hitting the $30-35 price point for a premium urethane ball.




    Just for the record, premium ball list prices;



    Titleist $49.99

    Bridgestone $44.99

    Maxfli $44.99

    Nike was $45.99

    Srixon $44.99

    Wilson Staff $49.99



    If you want a premium ball, the $5 extra for PROV1 isn't going to make you buy other brands.




    Did you really just reference premium balls and include Maxfli and Wilson staff but leave out Taylormade and Callaway?
    It was just a comparison I thought... Not a comprehensive list.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    WITB
    Tools for the job!

    To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened . :)

    Game is recovering from total ankle replacement. Getting there and glad to be pain free!
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,307 ✭✭
    J13 wrote:


    J13 wrote:


    I don't think it benefits anyone to pay $4 for a golf ball. As for Titleist they are the most expensive premium ball and have worked really hard to make sure people know that. It worked for them for a long time. Perceived value is a strong marketing tactic. Nowadays people are seeking value hence why so many companies are hitting the $30-35 price point for a premium urethane ball.




    Just for the record, premium ball list prices;



    Titleist $49.99

    Bridgestone $44.99

    Maxfli $44.99

    Nike was $45.99

    Srixon $44.99

    Wilson Staff $49.99



    If you want a premium ball, the $5 extra for PROV1 isn't going to make you buy other brands.


    Did you really just reference premium balls and include Maxfli and Wilson staff but leave out Taylormade and Callaway?




    It was not intended to be a list of all premium balls



    They weren't listed on the chart I was looking at. And there are others.



    The point remains the same.
Sign In or Register to comment.