Jump to content

storm319

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    4,879
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by storm319

  1. The ERC Soft is a 3-piece dual core single cover design similar to the legacy NXT Tour and technically doesn’t have any mantles (both inner layers are made from polybutadiene while mantles are injection molded ionomer).
  2. Tiger signed with Bridgestone before Taylormade. Also many high profile free agent signings are more influenced by money than a particular product’s performance.
  3. Believe it because the Professional did have a liquid core: Next, the first US Open hosted at Pinehurst was in 1999 at which point very few if any balata balls were still in play on tour. Do you have actual driving distance data from the US Open by year? Lastly, the Titleist Professional was released in 1994 which was several years prior to the Maxfli Revolution which was released in 1998 so I think you may be confusing different models.
  4. The Titleist Professional had a liquid core as well. The spin reduction of the Professional vs the Tour Balata was primarily due to the introduction of the cast thermoset urethane cover. Also, the difference in PGA Tour driving average from 1990 to 1996 which is a good sample for the switch from the Tour Balata to the Professional (both the highest played balls for their respective time periods) was a hand full of yards which would also include a number of other variables beyond the ball.
  5. Ball Plant 2 (MA) - all Acushnet injection molded ionomer or TPU cover models (including Titleist, Pinnacle, & Union Green). Ball Plant 3 (MA) - Titleist multilayer cast thermoset urethane cover models. Ball Plant 4 (Thailand) - same capabilities as plant 3. Fully owned and operated by Acushnet. Initially meant for non-USDM fulfillment, has been used to supplement USDM ProV1 demand in recent years. Ball Plant C (MA) - logo and personalization stamping.
  6. Single sleeve prices at green grass course pro shops tend to be more expensive than at the big retailers though (low buying power and the convenience factor).
  7. Every Golf Galaxy I have been to also has single sleeves from the major OEMs for sale.
  8. A 5 core compression point difference is negligible especially at that end of the spectrum and more in the range of an allowable tolerance than an explicit performance design spec. If someone has liked one of Callaway’s similarly constructed balls from the past few years, they should have no problem buying these the with confidence that the differences in name/packaging outweigh the actual differences in the balls themselves.
  9. Technically their guidance states that a stamp shouldn’t be reused until the previous submission has been discontinued for 3 years, but the USGA does not really enforce this (nor would they really have anyway of knowing with their testing methods). They simply test whatever is submitted for but will only allow a single entry per stamp to be on the list at a given time (ultimately they really only care about conformance). Given the submission schedule, it wouldn’t be hard for a submitter to time the new submission so that it is added to the list the same month that the previous submission expires.
  10. That quote from Golfalot is a misprint. The ProV1 had 392 dimples from 2000-2010 before changing to 352 in 2011. The only odd numbered dimple pattern I have ever seen was Srixon’s 333 pattern. Also, the left dot has a single core so it is not the same as any previous v1x core (that lineage has been a dual core design since the 2002 ProV1 Star).
  11. Submissions to the USGA expire after 12 months. Most of the time the OEMs resubmit the same ball with the same stamp if it is in use where the one ball condition couple be in play. Sometimes the same ball is submitted multiple times under different stamps as backups in case one fails the conformance tests (ex TP Red LDP) and sometimes the same stamp is used for a different ball of the prior submission has fallen off the list (ex Kirkland Performance+).
  12. This appears to be a TPU offering at a lower price point vs the rest of the Foremost made Pro line which are cast thermoset urethane. I also believe that the 344 dimple pattern is an old Srixon pattern (patent may have expired).
  13. Two Walmart's near me are completely bare. Also went to multiple DSG/GG stores last week and they were completely out of Callaway ionomer covered balls (they had a bit of everything else but it was the lowest stock I have ever seen at these places).
  14. The test 8 iron they used had a loft of 34* which could be around the same loft as a 6 or 7 iron in a more traditionally lofted set. With that said, mid-high 70's mph mid iron does seem high for someone only swinging their driver 85 mph.
  15. Except the specs listed for the OEM models are not helpful for stiffness profile comparison. If you compare the Blues, torque is the largest variation which makes sense considering that the Velocore is really just very high modulus fiber in the bias layup which influences torque, but the OEM is still within the range that most would consider low (also keep in mind that the bias layup has little to no impact on the stiffness profile of the shaft).
  16. Vertical price fixing actually does involve parties along the supply chain so the manufacturer+retailer relationship would qualify. However, price protection strategies like MAP (minimum advertised price) do not qualify as vertical price fixing because it is not explicitly limiting sales below an explicit threshold, only the advertising to entice the consumer to that retailer. Additionally, some seem to be confusing MAP with an RPMA (resale price maintenance agreement) which most commonly set an explicit minimum price (which used to be illegal but has become more of a gray area in recent years due to conflicting court decisions). Either way, if someone is going to boycott Acushnet based on MAP practices, they should be doing the same for all of the major OEMs since they all engage in this practice.
  17. So can we assume that you will not be playing anything other than DTC in the future considering that all of the major ball OEMs practice what you are so aggressively opposing? Also, if you have any NIB from Bridgestone, Callaway, Taylormade, or Srixon, I am sure several members here would be willing to take them off your hands in order to help you stick it to those greedy, “anti”-capitalist cronies
  18. Private quotes may not violate Honda's MAP agreement since it is not technically a public advertisement of the price. Also, the lowest dealer quote may have still been above Honda's MAP. Remember, the "M" in MAP stands for minimum so dealers are able to advertise a price above that minimum if they'd like.
  19. @North Butte is right. Price Fixing by definition is an agreement between competitors on price or competitive terms (aka collusion). An example of this would be Acushnet, Bridgestone, and Callaway agreeing to set a common wholesale price per dozen of their respective multi-layer urethane balls and not change that price for a set amount of time. Single company pricing strategies like MAP do not qualify. MAP strategies are more protection against retail price erosion where competing retailers go back and forth dropping prices until they are basically selling a product near cost. This ultimately puts more pressure on the OEM to drop prices in order to increase retail margins to the point where everyone involved eventually loses. Could you make an argument that protection strategies like this kill competition at the retailer level since the product is the same price everywhere? Possibly, but also keep in mind that the MAP threshold only applies to the minimum advertised price. The retailer can still sell the product below that price, they just can't advertise it without permission (granted there are ways around this like "see price in cart" type strategies, but in those cases, the price wasn't advertised to entice the consumer to the retailer). Ultimately all of the major OEMs have MAP agreements with their retailers, some just enforce their policies more aggressively than others.
  20. Wilson actually doesn't make any balls (production is contracted mainly to Foremost in Taiwan and some to 3rd party factories in China). As for this "study", this was a ambiguous quote from an op-ed that this guy wrote for MyGolf$py in 2015. No details about the study were detailed, only vague findings. Based on how it was worded (mentions of high/low velocity impact correlating to high/low swing speeds, not that they explicitly tested a moving club hitting a stationary ball), this test could have resembled the USGA's COR cannon test where the ball is shot from a cannon at a specific speed towards a stationary object. Additionally there is no standard definition of "high" or "low" compression nor what it actually represents (Wilson is notorious for stating core compression vs overall compression which clouds this even more). I find it perplexing that some people are quick to cite results from a test with no methodology detail or any actual data presented yet a quick to criticize a well executed effort that actually shows their work.
  21. MyGolf$spy stated that softer = slower (not necessarily shorter) and the results of both tests support this. In some cases changes to spin or launch can make up for the difference in ball speed, but when weighting the influence that each of these variables has on total distance, ball speed comes out on top in most cases. As for the distance comparisons, the TGUK test published data from GC Quad which only calculates distances based on initial launch conditions which means that aerodynamics and flight variances are not taken into account (I believe MyGolf$py had both but published the Trackman data which is still not the entire flight of the ball but more so than the GC Quad). This along with the other variables between the tests make cross comparison a waste of time.
  22. A few potential variables off the top of my head between the tests: *Swing variable differences (primarily angle of attack since the swing speeds were the same). *Club model differences and variance. *Environmental differences (primarily weather). *Calibration variance (robot, launch monitor). *Ball sample variance.
  23. The best method for testing something depends on the variable in question. In this case, the ball is the variable so eliminating the swing/club variables by using a swing robot is the best method to isolate that variable (the industry OEMs are in universal agreement on this). In contrast, human testing is the best method for testing something like a shaft since the goal of a shaft is efficient delivery of the clubhead to the ball which can vary greatly based on how the shaft is loaded (robots are limited to a single plane and are unable to simulate the way that a human loads it). As for why MyGolf$py used the same club and set of swing variables for both tested swing speeds, my guess is that they chose this approach to support median calculations in order to simulate 100 mph results since they were limited on testing time and since the other two speed results were fairly linear (which they would not be able to do if they had changed the club/swing variables). The 2021 test that just occurred explicitly tested all 3 speeds with different swing variables for each speed which should satisfy those criticisms. Those expecting any test to definitively recommend something as the best for an individual is simply not realistic. What these tests do provide is a resource to narrow down the ever growing number of choices down to a few for an individual to personally test (in the case of this test, the standard deviations and ball lab metrics are probably the most useful metrics in eliminating models that have a higher variance from consideration).
  24. What quantifiable metrics do you suggest they add from a trajectory standpoint when the 2019 test already included initial launch, offline dispersion, max height, and descent angle with standard deviation for each? What exactly do you mean by "playability" and how would you suggest it be measured?
×
×
  • Create New...