Titleist CEO suggests Tiger is shilling for inferior ball company

[TollBros]

Funny stuff since Titleist was actually sued and lost against Bridgestone for stealing over a dozen of their patents on the ProV1 line. Seems this "inferior" ball company had so many great aspects that Titleist couldn't resist stealing them and paying them a royalty on every ProV1 sold. I'm sorry but Titleist becomes more and more of a sour grapes elitist joke as time goes on. They literally snipe at anyone that threatens their overpriced golf ball market. Titleist it's time to wake up. Golfers as a demographic are smarter than most. In the day of testing and hard data, you can no longer sell your jealous propaganda as facts.

[BForrester]

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.

 

I couldn't agree more. Titleist is such an easy company to dislike, in my opinion.

[Catamounts12]

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

+1. My personal opinion, all tour level golf balls are essentially the same, assuming you match up the ball characteristics. You could give any good player, any of the tour level golf balls and with little practice, they would score just as well. At 47.99 a dozen, you can find an equivalent ball, for less........of course, my opinion. FWIW, I play the Bridgestone Tour B XS, because its nice to play something from the rest of the pack, plus, I hit it just as far as a prov, it performs just as well and its durable. my 2 cents.

[Tre4ISU]

Funny stuff since Titleist was actually sued and lost against Bridgestone for stealing over a dozen of their patents on the ProV1 line. Seems this "inferior" ball company had so many great aspects that Titleist couldn't resist stealing them and paying them a royalty on every ProV1 sold. I'm sorry but Titleist becomes more and more of a sour grapes elitist joke as time goes on. They literally snipe at anyone that threatens their overpriced golf ball market. Titleist it's time to wake up. Golfers as a demographic are smarter than most. In the day of testing and hard data, you can no longer sell your jealous propaganda as facts.

 

Right on, man. I have no trouble with any Titleist products. In fact, I think they make very good equipment across the board even though I don't think they are best at anything other than maybe balls. Scotty putters are great but that's hardly them. In the last couple years, though, I'm become soured on the brand. I won't try any of their stuff. Their whole "with us or ignorant" schtick has worn thin with me. There's so much other good stuff out there from really good companies that I'd much rather support them and lose 2 yards and 100 RPM if need be. Luckily it's not needed.

[Njames.cook2014]

Tiger is a club/gear junkie. Don’t get this lol

[Browns71213]

I have no idea what would happen in the ball market, but he's not wrong about this statement. Too many courses were created with the promise/hope of getting a championship as a tactic to sell expensive real estate and now their struggling to stay open.

 

"golf course developers and the supporting golf course architectural community who built too many golf courses where the notion of a 'championship golf course' was brought on line primarily to sell real estate,"

[storm319]

I have no idea what would happen in the ball market, but he's not wrong about this statement. Too many courses were created with the promise/hope of getting a championship as a tactic to sell expensive real estate and now their struggling to stay open.

 

"golf course developers and the supporting golf course architectural community who built too many golf courses where the notion of a 'championship golf course' was brought on line primarily to sell real estate,"

 

The real estate/golf course boom still would have happened regardless. These courses would still be in the same situation if they were 500-1000 yards shorter.

[nbg352]

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.

Bet you canard do so.....

[Browns71213]

I have no idea what would happen in the ball market, but he's not wrong about this statement. Too many courses were created with the promise/hope of getting a championship as a tactic to sell expensive real estate and now their struggling to stay open.

 

"golf course developers and the supporting golf course architectural community who built too many golf courses where the notion of a 'championship golf course' was brought on line primarily to sell real estate,"

 

The real estate/golf course boom still would have happened regardless. These courses would still be in the same situation if they were 500-1000 yards shorter.

 

Not talking about the yardage talking about the sheer quantity along with the municipal & financial resources needed to sustain them.

[koung]

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.

 

Oh wow if I had a day to explain how wrong you are I still wouldn't have enough time. iPhone was no where near the first touchscreen phone. It's cute that you think so though.

[North Butte]

 

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.

 

Oh wow if I had a day to explain how wrong you are I still wouldn't have enough time. iPhone was no where near the first touchscreen phone. It's cute that you think so though.

 

Whether iPhone or ProV1 or "twist face" drivers, the vast majority of people confuse being the first product THEY HAVE HEARD OF with being the first product on the market.

 

Just like when someone who has never heard of Kurosawa sees some movie and declares, "This thing is a total ripoff of the Magnificent Seven, can't believe they weren't sued for plagiarism".

[nbg352]

 

Oh wow if I had a day to explain how wrong you are I still wouldn't have enough time. iPhone was no where near the first touchscreen phone. It's cute that you think so though.

So for the learning challenged of us here, what was the first touch screen handheld device?

It should only take a moment......

[North Butte]

Oh wow if I had a day to explain how wrong you are I still wouldn't have enough time. iPhone was no where near the first touchscreen phone. It's cute that you think so though.

So for the learning challenged of us here, what was the first touch screen handheld device?

It should only take a moment......

 

From reply #23 on the first page of this thread.

 

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/...y/#PgosFkfzhsqI

 

Pull quote:

 

The IBM Simon was the first phone with a touchscreen in 1992

[nbg352]

Oh wow if I had a day to explain how wrong you are I still wouldn't have enough time. iPhone was no where near the first touchscreen phone. It's cute that you think so though.

So for the learning challenged of us here, what was the first touch screen handheld device?

It should only take a moment......

 

From reply #23 on the first page of this thread.

 

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/...y/#PgosFkfzhsqI

 

Pull quote:

 

The IBM Simon was the first phone with a touchscreen in 1992

Cool!

Thanks.

[North Butte]

That book "The One Device" is a pretty fun read, lots of interesting factoids. Also mixed in is a good bit of boring internal Apple politics stuff but since I got the book from the library I just skimmed...

[Texas Golfer]

What Titleist does right is to not change the name of their premium ball every two years. If I find a ball I like, I don't want to try to guess what ball to buy next year when the names and "new features" all change. Cally and Nike were annoying for that reason.

[storm319]

What Titleist does right is to not change the name of their premium ball every two years. If I find a ball I like, I don't want to try to guess what ball to buy next year when the names and "new features" all change. Cally and Nike were annoying for that reason.

 

They only do that because of how well the Pro V1 name sells. When sales go south, Titleist too will rebrand. From a marketing perspective, OEMs will continue with what sells.

[LaymanM]

I don’t want a rolled back ball rule or tour only model. I will be really pissed if their is a tour only ball. Smdh

 

Just leave it as is!