What's up with Cut Golf?

[trackcoach13]

> @pilot25 said:

> Where do they source their balls from then? They do not manufacture them themselves.

 

Snell made by Nassau Golf in S. Korea. The ball is designed by Snell.

[trackcoach13]

> @pilot25 said:

> Turns out CutBlue balls are made from a company called Foremostgolf. Asia company that makes balls for the small companies. Snell, CutBlue, etc... One of the small companies bought out months and months worth of factory space cranking out the balls and CutBlue was left with their pants down. Generally all these companies are getting the same or very similar ball from Foremostgolf and stamping their name on it.

>

> Another reason I won't use anything but Titlist. Thousands of ball patents and, most importantly, made in the USA. Everything else is a sham.

 

I believe Srixon claims to have more patents as that seems to matter to you. As for Titleist I find them WAY over priced and only play the free ones I find. I do have several hundred like new on hand.

[dlygrisse]

There is a difference between a "value ball" and a good value on a ball. Cut is a "value ball" Your issues are a prime example, also if you read the ball test from a certain website you will see they are the worst rated ball on the test.

[dlygrisse]

> @flushem said:

> > @pilot25 said:

> > Turns out CutBlue balls are made from a company called Foremostgolf. Asia company that makes balls for the small companies. Snell, CutBlue, etc... One of the small companies bought out months and months worth of factory space cranking out the balls and CutBlue was left with their pants down. Generally all these companies are getting the same or very similar ball from Foremostgolf and stamping their name on it.

> >

> > Another reason I won't use anything but Titlist. Thousands of ball patents and, most importantly, made in the USA. Everything else is a sham.

>

> Your info is good but not good enough. Please do thorough research b4 making a statement. I m not defending cut ball. No doubt Titleist produces quality balls but some other companies go through due diligence like Titleist.

 

I would not hesitate to play Bridgestone as well, just ask Tiger :) There are some other good ones as well, but the outsourced balls are a roll of the dice. Snell is probably the best of the bunch, but often the others are just overruns from various designs with their logo stamped on them, you don't even know if the 12 balls in the box aren't several different models. Cores could be totally different. To me spending a little extra on Titleist, Bridgestone or Srixon is totally worth it and actually a better value.

[trackcoach13]

> @dlygrisse said:

>

> but often the others are just overruns from various designs with their logo stamped on them, *you don't even know if the 12 balls in the box aren't several different models. Cores could be totally different.*

Ridiculous statement.

 

[dlygrisse]

> @trackcoach13 said:

> > @dlygrisse said:

> >

> > but often the others are just overruns from various designs with their logo stamped on them, *you don't even know if the 12 balls in the box aren't several different models. Cores could be totally different.*

> Ridiculous statement.

>

Nope, not at all, but it's a ridiculous business practice. It's what happens when you outsource you ball manufacturing to China.

 

 

[TexTau56]

Update: Cut just got back to me and refunded my order.

[dlygrisse]

 

[trackcoach13]

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @trackcoach13 said:

> > > @dlygrisse said:

> > >

> > > but often the others are just overruns from various designs with their logo stamped on them, *you don't even know if the 12 balls in the box aren't several different models. Cores could be totally different.*

> > Ridiculous statement.

> >

> Nope, not at all, but it's a ridiculous business practice. It's what happens when you outsource you ball manufacturing to China.

>

>

>

 

Did you actually watch the Mai Tai video instead of that snippet. They were discussing a display at Titleist of one box of balls from a brand no one plays found at a big box store. Nothing to do with Snell, Foremost, Nassau, etc.

 

 

[pilot25]

> @trackcoach13 said:

> > @pilot25 said:

> > Turns out CutBlue balls are made from a company called Foremostgolf. Asia company that makes balls for the small companies. Snell, CutBlue, etc... One of the small companies bought out months and months worth of factory space cranking out the balls and CutBlue was left with their pants down. Generally all these companies are getting the same or very similar ball from Foremostgolf and stamping their name on it.

> >

> > Another reason I won't use anything but Titlist. Thousands of ball patents and, most importantly, made in the USA. Everything else is a sham.

>

> I believe Srixon claims to have more patents as that seems to matter to you. As for Titleist I find them WAY over priced and only play the free ones I find. I do have several hundred like new on hand.

 

I don't care but Michael Sullivan, who is the lead ball engineer for Acushnet, has 970 patents the 17th most patents in history of the patent office. Just behind Edison. All are golf ball related. I'd say Srixon is full of horse crap on that one.

 

 

[trackcoach13]

> @pilot25 said:

> > @trackcoach13 said:

> > > @pilot25 said:

> > > Turns out CutBlue balls are made from a company called Foremostgolf. Asia company that makes balls for the small companies. Snell, CutBlue, etc... One of the small companies bought out months and months worth of factory space cranking out the balls and CutBlue was left with their pants down. Generally all these companies are getting the same or very similar ball from Foremostgolf and stamping their name on it.

> > >

> > > Another reason I won't use anything but Titlist. Thousands of ball patents and, most importantly, made in the USA. Everything else is a sham.

> >

> > I believe Srixon claims to have more patents as that seems to matter to you. As for Titleist I find them WAY over priced and only play the free ones I find. I do have several hundred like new on hand.

>

> I don't care but Michael Sullivan, who is the lead ball engineer for Acushnet, has 970 patents the 17th most patents in history of the patent office. Just behind Edison. All are golf ball related. I'd say Srixon is full of horse crap on that one.

>

>

 

Full of crap based upon what? Your opinion? Sorry but I will pass on that. Srixon was the manfacturer of Dunlop and Slazenger balls and have been in business a very long time. You might not know it but at one time those were popular brands in golf.

[pilot25]

I'll repeat it so you can maybe understand. Mike Sullivan has the 17th most patents in the history of the patent office. 17th. That is all industries, not just golf, since the dawn of the patent office. I'm going to say with 99.9% reliability he has more patents than the entire golf industry put together and I'm going to take a big guess he isn't the only engineer on staff at Acushnet. Math is hard, I guess.

[trackcoach13]

> @pilot25 said:

> I'll repeat it so you can maybe understand. Mike Sullivan has the 17th most patents in the history of the patent office. 17th. That is all industries, not just golf, since the dawn of the patent office. I'm going to say with 99.9% reliability he has more patents than the entire golf industry put together and I'm going to take a big guess he isn't the only engineer on staff at Acushnet. Math is hard, I guess.

 

Where to begin...

 

Srixon has over 1000 worldwide patents. Fact

 

Sullivan is a VP of intellectual property his name is on just about every patent from top flite and acushnet. What his involvement was with each I cannot say.

 

Speaking of 99.9, I can say with 99.96 percent accuracy that my IQ is higher than yours as mine happens to fall into that percentile. That is not arrogance just stating a fact.

 

As for Math...LOL

FYI from 2006 article:

 

The intellectual property in question, referred to in the complaint as "the Sullivan patents," focuses primarily on the construction of a multilayer ball with a solid core and a polyurethane cover. The patents were acquired by Callaway in 2003 when it purchased Top-Flite Golf from bankruptcy.

 

The "Sullivan patents" is a reference to Michael J. Sullivan, former Top-Flite vice president of golf ball research and engineering and current Acushnet vice president of intellectual property.

[pilot25]

There it is. When you start swinging some ridiculous statement about your knowledge or money.

 

Acushnet has more patents in ball tech +1200 than any other company, golf or otherwise, has patents. Sullivan is the lead so he gets his name on some of the patents. He has 950. Math is hard....

[numberonecoog]

> @trackcoach13 said:

> > @pilot25 said:

> > I'll repeat it so you can maybe understand. Mike Sullivan has the 17th most patents in the history of the patent office. 17th. That is all industries, not just golf, since the dawn of the patent office. I'm going to say with 99.9% reliability he has more patents than the entire golf industry put together and I'm going to take a big guess he isn't the only engineer on staff at Acushnet. Math is hard, I guess.

>

> Where to begin...

>

> Srixon has over 1000 worldwide patents. Fact

>

> Sullivan is a VP of intellectual property his name is on just about every patent from top flite and acushnet. What his involvement was with each I cannot say.

>

> Speaking of 99.9, I can say with 99.96 percent accuracy that my IQ is higher than yours as mine happens to fall into that percentile. That is not arrogance just stating a fact.

>

> As for Math...LOL

> FYI from 2006 article:

>

> The intellectual property in question, referred to in the complaint as "the Sullivan patents," focuses primarily on the construction of a multilayer ball with a solid core and a polyurethane cover. The patents were acquired by Callaway in 2003 when it purchased Top-Flite Golf from bankruptcy.

>

> The "Sullivan patents" is a reference to Michael J. Sullivan, former Top-Flite vice president of golf ball research and engineering and current Acushnet vice president of intellectual property.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[trackcoach13]

> @pilot25 said:

> There it is. When you start swinging some ridiculous statement about your knowledge or money.

>

> Acushnet has more patents in ball tech +1200 than any other company, golf or otherwise, has patents. Sullivan is the lead so he gets his name on some of the patents. He has 950. Math is hard....

 

Apparently math is hard for you. You said you 99.9 pct sure he had more patents than rest of industry combined. Srixon has well over 1000. Regular Einstein.

[Myherobobhope]

I think there are a few different issues at play here, and I think consumers need to be aware of them and take them into account when buying golf balls (especially DTC).

1. Design: Obviously the golf ball design has a huge impact on how it plays... There are a number of ways to skin a cat, though... All the big brands seem to have a different design that leads to similar results. There are also rules about golf balls that keep people in check... I'm not sure what would happen if people were allowed to make the "best" golf ball possible... That said, most testing seems to show that performance across the majority of brands is reasonable. There aren't any major outliers on either side. Having played a variety of golf balls this season, I can attest to differences being noticeable but not game changing. I think finding a ball you like and sticking to it is the smart choice, regardless of tests or anything else.

2. Manufacture and Quality Control: Obviously the big brands have a huge advantage here. They have much more control over the process as they spend more money. There are probably variations between brands, but for the most part it seems like the big brands are the most consistent... A company like Bridgestone has a ton of experience in outsourced manufacturing... My guess is they would be one of the most consistent, but I have no data to back that up. Smaller companies are more at the whims of manufacturers. Costco has a huge advantage in that their business model revolves around Kirkland brand being competitive and buying excess capacity for their own products... Everything from their bourbon to their tissues are high quality. I don't expect this to change with golf balls. My guess is that Snell has a pretty good handle on the process as well. With his experience in the industry and obvious pride in his product, I'm willing to bet he's been inside the factories making his product. He's not buying overrun golf balls, I don't think. I'd wager the other competitors range from good to awful in terms of what they are selling.

 

Overall, the Direct to Consumer model is an evolving market... Balls and companies have come and gone. To me, Snell has proven the model can work if you stay on top of the process and your product. I think other companies either came in with good intentions and got overwhelmed with demand or saw a cash grab opportunity and marketed generic balls as something special... The only other DTC I've hit is the MG, and it was fine. I didn't notice any lack of consistency.

 

I am focused on playing a consistent golf ball this season. One I can get consistently and one that performs consistently. I have settled on the MTB Black thus far, and will work my way through 2 dozen before making my final choice... I understand it's more of a risk shying away from the big brands, but we shall see how it goes.

 

Titliest is the industry leader for a reason. If a different ball gave players a better edge, they'd be playing them. Patents or not, they clearly work. Whether or not they are the best fit for me is a different story (they aren't... I prefer Bridgestone, but I also don't like spending $45 on golf balls)

[trackcoach13]

> @Myherobobhope said:

> I think there are a few different issues at play here, and I think consumers need to be aware of them and take them into account when buying golf balls (especially DTC).

> 1. Design: Obviously the golf ball design has a huge impact on how it plays... There are a number of ways to skin a cat, though... All the big brands seem to have a different design that leads to similar results. There are also rules about golf balls that keep people in check... I'm not sure what would happen if people were allowed to make the "best" golf ball possible... That said, most testing seems to show that performance across the majority of brands is reasonable. There aren't any major outliers on either side. Having played a variety of golf balls this season, I can attest to differences being noticeable but not game changing. I think finding a ball you like and sticking to it is the smart choice, regardless of tests or anything else.

> 2. Manufacture and Quality Control: Obviously the big brands have a huge advantage here. They have much more control over the process as they spend more money. There are probably variations between brands, but for the most part it seems like the big brands are the most consistent... A company like Bridgestone has a ton of experience in outsourced manufacturing... My guess is they would be one of the most consistent, but I have no data to back that up. Smaller companies are more at the whims of manufacturers. Costco has a huge advantage in that their business model revolves around Kirkland brand being competitive and buying excess capacity for their own products... Everything from their bourbon to their tissues are high quality. I don't expect this to change with golf balls. My guess is that Snell has a pretty good handle on the process as well. With his experience in the industry and obvious pride in his product, I'm willing to bet he's been inside the factories making his product. He's not buying overrun golf balls, I don't think. I'd wager the other competitors range from good to awful in terms of what they are selling.

>

> Overall, the Direct to Consumer model is an evolving market... Balls and companies have come and gone. To me, Snell has proven the model can work if you stay on top of the process and your product. I think other companies either came in with good intentions and got overwhelmed with demand or saw a cash grab opportunity and marketed generic balls as something special... The only other DTC I've hit is the MG, and it was fine. I didn't notice any lack of consistency.

>

> I am focused on playing a consistent golf ball this season. One I can get consistently and one that performs consistently. I have settled on the MTB Black thus far, and will work my way through 2 dozen before making my final choice... I understand it's more of a risk shying away from the big brands, but we shall see how it goes.

>

> Titliest is the industry leader for a reason. If a different ball gave players a better edge, they'd be playing them. Patents or not, they clearly work. Whether or not they are the best fit for me is a different story (they aren't... I prefer Bridgestone, but I also don't like spending $45 on golf balls)

 

Well said

[MaxBuck]

> @pilot25 said:

> I'll repeat it so you can maybe understand. Mike Sullivan has the 17th most patents in the history of the patent office. 17th. That is all industries, not just golf, since the dawn of the patent office. I'm going to say with 99.9% reliability he has more patents than the entire golf industry put together and I'm going to take a big guess he isn't the only engineer on staff at Acushnet. Math is hard, I guess.

 

Number of patents is meaningless. In fact, the US has a fairly serious problem with trivial patent issuance.

[storm319]

> @MaxBuck said:

>In fact, the US has a fairly serious problem with trivial patent issuance.

 

And the only ones who benefit are the lawyers...

 

[Double Dodger]

> @linkerpan said:

> I wonder who can still defend Cut

 

Just ordered five dozen and got a free dozen of colored balls for the wife. Got them in two days. Not defending, just sayin’...

[Double Dodger]

> @pilot25 said:

> There it is. When you start swinging some ridiculous statement about your knowledge or money.

>

> Acushnet has more patents in ball tech +1200 than any other company, golf or otherwise, has patents. Sullivan is the lead so he gets his name on some of the patents. He has 950. Math is hard....

 

So it’s settled. Titleist has more patients so it is best. Sure, that is why......

[Double Dodger]

> @Myherobobhope said:

> I think there are a few different issues at play here, and I think consumers need to be aware of them and take them into account when buying golf balls (especially DTC).

> 1. Design: Obviously the golf ball design has a huge impact on how it plays... There are a number of ways to skin a cat, though... All the big brands seem to have a different design that leads to similar results. There are also rules about golf balls that keep people in check... I'm not sure what would happen if people were allowed to make the "best" golf ball possible... That said, most testing seems to show that performance across the majority of brands is reasonable. There aren't any major outliers on either side. Having played a variety of golf balls this season, I can attest to differences being noticeable but not game changing. I think finding a ball you like and sticking to it is the smart choice, regardless of tests or anything else.

> 2. Manufacture and Quality Control: Obviously the big brands have a huge advantage here. They have much more control over the process as they spend more money. There are probably variations between brands, but for the most part it seems like the big brands are the most consistent... A company like Bridgestone has a ton of experience in outsourced manufacturing... My guess is they would be one of the most consistent, but I have no data to back that up. Smaller companies are more at the whims of manufacturers. Costco has a huge advantage in that their business model revolves around Kirkland brand being competitive and buying excess capacity for their own products... Everything from their bourbon to their tissues are high quality. I don't expect this to change with golf balls. My guess is that Snell has a pretty good handle on the process as well. With his experience in the industry and obvious pride in his product, I'm willing to bet he's been inside the factories making his product. He's not buying overrun golf balls, I don't think. I'd wager the other competitors range from good to awful in terms of what they are selling.

>

> Overall, the Direct to Consumer model is an evolving market... Balls and companies have come and gone. To me, Snell has proven the model can work if you stay on top of the process and your product. I think other companies either came in with good intentions and got overwhelmed with demand or saw a cash grab opportunity and marketed generic balls as something special... The only other DTC I've hit is the MG, and it was fine. I didn't notice any lack of consistency.

>

> I am focused on playing a consistent golf ball this season. One I can get consistently and one that performs consistently. I have settled on the MTB Black thus far, and will work my way through 2 dozen before making my final choice... I understand it's more of a risk shying away from the big brands, but we shall see how it goes.

>

> Titliest is the industry leader for a reason. If a different ball gave players a better edge, they'd be playing them. Patents or not, they clearly work. Whether or not they are the best fit for me is a different story (they aren't... I prefer Bridgestone, but I also don't like spending $45 on golf balls)

 

Titleist balls may or may not be the most consistent ball. What I can tell you without a doubt is they are the biggest spenders. A friend of mine has a gifted junior golfer who has an entire bag of titleist clubs. He mentioned to me that her least consistent club was the driver. I asked what else had she tried and quickly learned she would use nothing but titleist because they gave her (and him incidentally) free stuff. A lot of balls.

 

This is their business plan. Get them playing their ball early with free stuff and hopefully they stay loyal for their career if they can be good enough to make it to a high level.

 

They don’t give me anything. Fact is they would charge me a ridiculous $5 a ball so they can give my friend and his daughter dozens of free balls. No thanks. I’ll pass....

[rightslice]

^^^ This-same reason Apple falls all over themselves to give school districts free apple laptops and pc's. Early integration with youngsters sticks. Time proven fact. There are tons of great golf balls out there. Titleist are great balls, none for me though. I do believe a lot of fierce loyalty is from setting up kids early. Callaway ball designer said "We've just touched the surface on what we can do" not sure how many patents he has. LOL

[Flyers99]

Same as above two. Titleist spends way more money and gives away Tons of balls. The balls are great but there are others out there with just as good “quality”. Just depends on what the individual prefers.

[TheInfidel]

Direct to consumer = garbage.* Had the same issues with Vice. They sent me sleeves of chopped up Maxflis and claimed it was an error.

Buy premium balls on sale. Winning. Srixon Z Srar XV for £29 is hands down the best.

 

 

_*I would prob exclude Snell from this. _

[Llortamaisey]

> @"Double Dodger" said:

> > @Myherobobhope said:

> > I think there are a few different issues at play here, and I think consumers need to be aware of them and take them into account when buying golf balls (especially DTC).

> > 1. Design: Obviously the golf ball design has a huge impact on how it plays... There are a number of ways to skin a cat, though... All the big brands seem to have a different design that leads to similar results. There are also rules about golf balls that keep people in check... I'm not sure what would happen if people were allowed to make the "best" golf ball possible... That said, most testing seems to show that performance across the majority of brands is reasonable. There aren't any major outliers on either side. Having played a variety of golf balls this season, I can attest to differences being noticeable but not game changing. I think finding a ball you like and sticking to it is the smart choice, regardless of tests or anything else.

> > 2. Manufacture and Quality Control: Obviously the big brands have a huge advantage here. They have much more control over the process as they spend more money. There are probably variations between brands, but for the most part it seems like the big brands are the most consistent... A company like Bridgestone has a ton of experience in outsourced manufacturing... My guess is they would be one of the most consistent, but I have no data to back that up. Smaller companies are more at the whims of manufacturers. Costco has a huge advantage in that their business model revolves around Kirkland brand being competitive and buying excess capacity for their own products... Everything from their bourbon to their tissues are high quality. I don't expect this to change with golf balls. My guess is that Snell has a pretty good handle on the process as well. With his experience in the industry and obvious pride in his product, I'm willing to bet he's been inside the factories making his product. He's not buying overrun golf balls, I don't think. I'd wager the other competitors range from good to awful in terms of what they are selling.

> >

> > Overall, the Direct to Consumer model is an evolving market... Balls and companies have come and gone. To me, Snell has proven the model can work if you stay on top of the process and your product. I think other companies either came in with good intentions and got overwhelmed with demand or saw a cash grab opportunity and marketed generic balls as something special... The only other DTC I've hit is the MG, and it was fine. I didn't notice any lack of consistency.

> >

> > I am focused on playing a consistent golf ball this season. One I can get consistently and one that performs consistently. I have settled on the MTB Black thus far, and will work my way through 2 dozen before making my final choice... I understand it's more of a risk shying away from the big brands, but we shall see how it goes.

> >

> > Titliest is the industry leader for a reason. If a different ball gave players a better edge, they'd be playing them. Patents or not, they clearly work. Whether or not they are the best fit for me is a different story (they aren't... I prefer Bridgestone, but I also don't like spending $45 on golf balls)

>

> Titleist balls may or may not be the most consistent ball. What I can tell you without a doubt is they are the biggest spenders. A friend of mine has a gifted junior golfer who has an entire bag of titleist clubs. He mentioned to me that her least consistent club was the driver. I asked what else had she tried and quickly learned she would use nothing but titleist because they gave her (and him incidentally) free stuff. A lot of balls.

>

> This is their business plan. Get them playing their ball early with free stuff and hopefully they stay loyal for their career if they can be good enough to make it to a high level.

>

> They don’t give me anything. Fact is they would charge me a ridiculous $5 a ball so they can give my friend and his daughter dozens of free balls. No thanks. I’ll pass....

 

All the big OEMs court junior golf like Titleist but Titleist definitely spend the most on junior golf. It makes sense though, because they also have the highest revenue of any OEM. Big spenders are usually the big money maker.

[ASN21]

> @TheInfidel said:

> Direct to consumer = garbage.* Had the same issues with Vice. They sent me sleeves of chopped up Maxflis and claimed it was an error.

> Buy premium balls on sale. Winning. Srixon Z Srar XV for £29 is hands down the best.

>

>

> _*I would prob exclude Snell from this. _

 

Agree 100%. Minus Snell, DTC golf balls = utter trash. The QC and ball to ball consistency on these is laughable. I'll stick to TaylorMade, Titleist, Srixon and Bridgestone only.