Titleist CEO suggests Tiger is shilling for inferior ball company

[Nessism]

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.

[Shilgy]

More folks would still use Titleist because the name has become synonymous with quality golf balls.

 

PS this idea of a tour ball would never ever work imo. You could not have just one ball that is approved for tour play as that would favor those players that balls characteristics happen to most closely fit. So each manufacturer would have to make balls with new limits, that would never sell, just for their tour players. That is just one of the reasons why bifurcation won't work.

[cgasucks]

Before Wally ever made that comment, Titleist's ball market share has been steadily eroding in the last few years as more competitors can offer Pro V1 performance at a lower price point, (Snell, Vice, Kirkland). That comment to me is a sign of desperation from him and the way he put down Bridgestone was a total turnoff to me. When I look at a Pro V1 in my stash, I look at it in disgust instead of pride.

[Nessism]

PS this idea of a tour ball would never ever work imo. You could not have just one ball that is approved for tour play as that would favor those players that balls characteristics happen to most closely fit.

 

It would be simple enough to make Tour balls with a shorter distance mandate. Regarding other ball features such as how spiny and the firmness, the manufacturers would be free to customize to whatever the players desire. "Tour Issue" balls would abound with all the variety that we see with TI clubs today.

[cristphoto]

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.

 

https://www.golf.com/tour-news/2017/11/20/titleist-ceo-questions-need-reduced-flight-golf-ball

 

Could it be resentment from Titleist losing a patent infringement settlement against Bridgestone? Were they copying an inferior ball then?

[North Butte]

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.

 

https://www.golf.com/tour-news/2017/11/20/titleist-ceo-questions-need-reduced-flight-golf-ball

 

Could it be resentment from Titleist losing a patent infringement settlement against Bridgestone? Were they copying an inferior ball then?

 

No it’s only you and a few other Internet posters who is worried about lawsuits from a decade and a half ago. I do not think CEO’s of billion dollar corporations lose any sleep over lawsuits long since settled out of court.

[PostandGhost]

So is he alluding that Bridgestone will have a financial advantage if they dial back the ball because they won't have to retool and develop new products?

[cristphoto]

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.

 

https://www.golf.com...light-golf-ball

 

Could it be resentment from Titleist losing a patent infringement settlement against Bridgestone? Were they copying an inferior ball then?

 

No it’s only you and a few other Internet posters who is worried about lawsuits from a decade and a half ago. I do not think CEO’s of billion dollar corporations lose any sleep over lawsuits long since settled out of court.

 

I'm glad you know CEO's don't hold grudges against their competitors. Hello Howard Hughes.

[North Butte]

So is he alluding that Bridgestone will have a financial advantage if they dial back the ball because they won't have to retool and develop new products?

 

No he is saying that Bridgestone will never match Titleists tour presence and therefore Bridgestone wants the USGA to force retail golfers into buying balls not played on Tour.

 

 

[Nessism]

So is he alluding that Bridgestone will have a financial advantage if they dial back the ball because they won't have to retool and develop new products?

 

No he is saying that Bridgestone will never match Titleists tour presence and therefore Bridgestone wants the USGA to force retail golfers into buying balls not played on Tour.

 

That's not what he said and I don't understand how you get there from his statement

 

"Given Bridgestone’s very small worldwide market share and paltry presence in professional golf, it would seem logical they would have a commercial motive making the case for a reduced distance golf ball," Uihlein wrote."

[new2g0lf]

Before Wally ever made that comment, Titleist's ball market share has been steadily eroding in the last few years as more competitors can offer Pro V1 performance at a lower price point, (Snell, Vice, Kirkland). That comment to me is a sign of desperation from him and the way he put down Bridgestone was a total turnoff to me. When I look at a Pro V1 in my stash, I look at it in disgust instead of pride.

 

The common assumption is that Titleist market share is eroding because of Snell, KSig, Vice and Cut but consider;

1. Callaway, Bridgestone, TM, Mizuno and Srixon all make premium golf balls that are within 10% of the price of Pro V1's and all sell at higher prices than the discount premium balls.
   
2. There are a lot of golfers that play non-premium balls and pre-owned balls because the cost of premium balls was beyond their means or what they were willing to pay.
   
3. International sales, we have little data to indicate that Snell, KSig, Vice or Cut have had the same success outside the US as they have inside the US.
   

While everyone likes to attack the giant, in this case Titleist, there is little data to indicate the discount premium balls have eroded their overall market share as much as some of you think or would like to think. Based on what I've read and heard, the discount premium balls have had a minimal impact on Pro V1's and are actually hurting the non-premium tier ball offerings from the major manufacturers and pre-owned markets.

[North Butte]

Before Wally ever made that comment, Titleist's ball market share has been steadily eroding in the last few years as more competitors can offer Pro V1 performance at a lower price point, (Snell, Vice, Kirkland). That comment to me is a sign of desperation from him and the way he put down Bridgestone was a total turnoff to me. When I look at a Pro V1 in my stash, I look at it in disgust instead of pride.

 

The common assumption is that Titleist market share is eroding because of Snell, KSig, Vice and Cut but consider;

1. Callaway, Bridgestone, TM, Mizuno and Srixon all make premium golf balls that are within 10% of the price of Pro V1's and all sell at higher prices than the discount premium balls.
   
2. There are a lot of golfers that play non-premium balls and pre-owned balls because the cost of premium balls was beyond their means or what they were willing to pay.
   
3. International sales, we have little data to indicate that Snell, KSig, Vice or Cut have had the same success outside the US as they have inside the US.
   

While everyone likes to attack the giant, in this case Titleist, there is little data to indicate the discount premium balls have eroded their overall market share as much as some of you think or would like to think. Based on what I've read and heard, the discount premium balls have had a minimal impact on Pro V1's and are actually hurting the non-premium tier ball offerings from the major manufacturers and pre-owned markets.

 

But whole meme has never made sense to me. It’s as if nobody ever noticed that every single ball in the pro shop is cheaper than Titleist. Every day, has been for years.

 

But then a few places start selling cheap Asian white label balls and the whole world wakes up and says, “Wait a minute. You mean there are balls cheaper than Titleist?” Oh Brave New World and such wonders in’t!

 

Thank goodness Tony Covey slapped a few K-Sigs into his net and discovered they were 15 yards longer.

 

Before Wally ever made that comment, Titleist's ball market share has been steadily eroding in the last few years as more competitors can offer Pro V1 performance at a lower price point, (Snell, Vice, Kirkland). That comment to me is a sign of desperation from him and the way he put down Bridgestone was a total turnoff to me. When I look at a Pro V1 in my stash, I look at it in disgust instead of pride.

 

The common assumption is that Titleist market share is eroding because of Snell, KSig, Vice and Cut but consider;

1. Callaway, Bridgestone, TM, Mizuno and Srixon all make premium golf balls that are within 10% of the price of Pro V1's and all sell at higher prices than the discount premium balls.
   
2. There are a lot of golfers that play non-premium balls and pre-owned balls because the cost of premium balls was beyond their means or what they were willing to pay.
   
3. International sales, we have little data to indicate that Snell, KSig, Vice or Cut have had the same success outside the US as they have inside the US.
   

While everyone likes to attack the giant, in this case Titleist, there is little data to indicate the discount premium balls have eroded their overall market share as much as some of you think or would like to think. Based on what I've read and heard, the discount premium balls have had a minimal impact on Pro V1's and are actually hurting the non-premium tier ball offerings from the major manufacturers and pre-owned markets.

 

But whole meme has never made sense to me. It’s as if nobody ever noticed that every single ball in the pro shop is cheaper than Titleist. Every day, has been for years.

 

But then a few places start selling cheap Asian white label balls and the whole world wakes up and says, “Wait a minute. You mean there are balls cheaper than Titleist?” Oh Brave New World and such wonders in’t!

 

Thank goodness Tony Covey slapped a few K-Sigs into his net and discovered they were 15 yards longer.

[new2g0lf]

Before Wally ever made that comment, Titleist's ball market share has been steadily eroding in the last few years as more competitors can offer Pro V1 performance at a lower price point, (Snell, Vice, Kirkland). That comment to me is a sign of desperation from him and the way he put down Bridgestone was a total turnoff to me. When I look at a Pro V1 in my stash, I look at it in disgust instead of pride.

 

The common assumption is that Titleist market share is eroding because of Snell, KSig, Vice and Cut but consider;

1. Callaway, Bridgestone, TM, Mizuno and Srixon all make premium golf balls that are within 10% of the price of Pro V1's and all sell at higher prices than the discount premium balls.
   
2. There are a lot of golfers that play non-premium balls and pre-owned balls because the cost of premium balls was beyond their means or what they were willing to pay.
   
3. International sales, we have little data to indicate that Snell, KSig, Vice or Cut have had the same success outside the US as they have inside the US.
   

While everyone likes to attack the giant, in this case Titleist, there is little data to indicate the discount premium balls have eroded their overall market share as much as some of you think or would like to think. Based on what I've read and heard, the discount premium balls have had a minimal impact on Pro V1's and are actually hurting the non-premium tier ball offerings from the major manufacturers and pre-owned markets.

 

But whole meme has never made sense to me. It's as if nobody ever noticed that every single ball in the pro shop is cheaper than Titleist. Every day, has been for years.

 

But then a few places start selling cheap Asian white label balls and the whole world wakes up and says, "Wait a minute. You mean there are balls cheaper than Titleist?" Oh Brave New World and such wonders in't!

 

Thank goodness Tony Covey slapped a few K-Sigs into his net and discovered they were 15 yards longer.

 

Before Wally ever made that comment, Titleist's ball market share has been steadily eroding in the last few years as more competitors can offer Pro V1 performance at a lower price point, (Snell, Vice, Kirkland). That comment to me is a sign of desperation from him and the way he put down Bridgestone was a total turnoff to me. When I look at a Pro V1 in my stash, I look at it in disgust instead of pride.

 

The common assumption is that Titleist market share is eroding because of Snell, KSig, Vice and Cut but consider;

1. Callaway, Bridgestone, TM, Mizuno and Srixon all make premium golf balls that are within 10% of the price of Pro V1's and all sell at higher prices than the discount premium balls.
   
2. There are a lot of golfers that play non-premium balls and pre-owned balls because the cost of premium balls was beyond their means or what they were willing to pay.
   
3. International sales, we have little data to indicate that Snell, KSig, Vice or Cut have had the same success outside the US as they have inside the US.
   

While everyone likes to attack the giant, in this case Titleist, there is little data to indicate the discount premium balls have eroded their overall market share as much as some of you think or would like to think. Based on what I've read and heard, the discount premium balls have had a minimal impact on Pro V1's and are actually hurting the non-premium tier ball offerings from the major manufacturers and pre-owned markets.

 

But whole meme has never made sense to me. It's as if nobody ever noticed that every single ball in the pro shop is cheaper than Titleist. Every day, has been for years.

 

But then a few places start selling cheap Asian white label balls and the whole world wakes up and says, "Wait a minute. You mean there are balls cheaper than Titleist?" Oh Brave New World and such wonders in't!

 

Thank goodness Tony Covey slapped a few K-Sigs into his net and discovered they were 15 yards longer.

 

I never bought a new Pro V1 for my own use (only gifts) so it really doesn't impact me, but I don't like to see misinformation spread. I personally don't know a single person that gave up their Pro V1's to play a discount premium ball. My observations don't mean some haven't but the numbers are minimal compared to the other golf ball market segments.

[MattyO1984]

Before Wally ever made that comment, Titleist's ball market share has been steadily eroding in the last few years as more competitors can offer Pro V1 performance at a lower price point, (Snell, Vice, Kirkland). That comment to me is a sign of desperation from him and the way he put down Bridgestone was a total turnoff to me. When I look at a Pro V1 in my stash, I look at it in disgust instead of pride.

 

You look at your other golf balls and feel pride?!

[North Butte]

Before Wally ever made that comment, Titleist's ball market share has been steadily eroding in the last few years as more competitors can offer Pro V1 performance at a lower price point, (Snell, Vice, Kirkland). That comment to me is a sign of desperation from him and the way he put down Bridgestone was a total turnoff to me. When I look at a Pro V1 in my stash, I look at it in disgust instead of pride.

 

You look at your other golf balls and feel pride?!

 

Sometimes a ball is just a ball.

 

—S. Freud

[youraway2]

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...

 

Leave out the word "perceived" and your post is rock solid.

[Nessism]

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...

 

Leave out the word "perceived" and your post is rock solid.

 

Ksig baby!

[North Butte]

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...

 

Leave out the word "perceived" and your post is rock solid.

 

Ksig baby!

 

And it’s 15 Yards Longer

[storm319]

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?

 

The first multilayer, solid core ball released was the Spaulding Top Flite Strata introduced in 1996, but the cover wasn't urethane. I believe the Precept MC Tour Premium was the first solid core, multilayer, urethane covered ball released. Bridgestone (Precept brand), Callaway, Nike, and Spaulding (Strata brand) all had their respective models on tour before the Titleist ProV1 made its debut in late 2000.

[storm319]

Take Tiger's comments with a grain of salt. He's on staff with a company that has been attacking the market leader for over 10 years. The fact that his comments seem to parrot those of his new endorser is suspect when he hasn't mentioned it one bit in the 17 years since his switch. He has also been struggling with injuries over the past few years and is entering the "get off my lawn" stage of his career (hopefully he doesn't end up as crotchety and jaded as Jack).

 

As for Bridgestone, they have apparently been working with the USGA on development of a potential rollback standard for years. If the rollback does happen, they will have a sizable head start on the rest of the industry.

 

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2010/8/19/feedback-from-usgas-prototype-ball-testing-event.html

 

As for Titleist, they obviously have the most to lose with any regulatory change so Uihlein's response is no surprise.

[xxio]

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 wasn't. Tiger circa 2000 played the Tour Accuracy when everyone else was using the Prestige and Tour Balata.

[xxio]

 

 

Correct on all counts. I would even add I think the first major won with a multilayer urethane ball was when Faldo used the Precept Tour Premium at the Masters that Greg handed to him.

[grm24]

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 wasn't. Tiger circa 2000 played the Tour Accuracy when everyone else was using the Prestige and Tour Balata.

Most Titleist ball players on tour in 2000 were using the Titleist Professional.

[Big Ben]

I think the B330s is a fantastic ball. I will play what's best for my game and this ball surpasses a ProV1 in performance. Not sure how you would quantify this however beyond personal preference. BB

[xxio]

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 wasn't. Tiger circa 2000 played the Tour Accuracy when everyone else was using the Prestige and Tour Balata.

Most Titleist ball players on tour in 2000 were using the Titleist Professional.

 

Forgot about that one. I myself played Maxfli HT liquid center balatas until I discovered the Precept MC Tour Premium and the Dynawing Double Cover.

[Thayneil]

The Pro V 1 is the shortest of all the balls ai have used recently

 

spinny for sure,great for Par 3s and short par 4s

 

But shorter than TM and Callways ,I reckon

 

I just use my Pro Vs for chipping practise now

[jschwarb]

The gap between high-end balls is less than its ever been. I really doubt that many WRXers could tell significant differences if you had them play blank ProV1s, TM TPs, B330, etc. I'm sure I couldn't. But at the end of the day I'll fully admit I drink the Titleist kool-aid; I just like the script and playing the Pro V1 makes me feel good. And isn't that what the game is all about? As for the expense, well, I'm gonna spend money somewhere and fortunately I'm not a club ho, so I can handle pricier balls.

[new2g0lf]

When you're playing for $1M dollars you don't want to have any concerns about equipment or give yourself any reason to second guess yourself. Why would any pro play a ball that they don't have full confidence in? I know Bubba had a lot of issues last year besides the switch to Volvik but I still think it messed with his head.

[grm24]

As for Bridgestone, they have apparently been working with the USGA on development of a potential rollback standard for years. If the rollback does happen, they will have a sizable head start on the rest of the industry.

All golf ball manufacturers were asked by the USGA some years back to submit golf balls that were rolled back for testing purposes. IIRC all of the major/OEM ball manufacturers complied with the USGA request. So then how would Bridgestone have such an advantage when when all of the major ball manufacturers have already developed balls to comply with the USGA request? The manufacturers would then have them ready for development if the USGA changed the ball rules.

[baldandbroke]

Just look at the marketing of both:

 

 

 

 

I think I can work out why Titleist want the ball that the pros use to be available for the average Joe ... whereas Bridgestone would like to change that.