Jump to content

Justin_Ellis

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    823
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. I find this line of thinking comical. Worrying what the top players the .00001% does to classic courses is a horrible way to manage the game. I honestly think difficulty and frustration on the course is why we are losing more average players than we gain. Look at top golf and its popularity. There isn't a target that cannot be reached by average joe and even bad shots have a chance to score. This is fun for the regular golfer and takes nothing away from the top level. Honestly at this point I am all for bifurcation, but only if the .83 COR and ball restrictions are removed for amateur play wh
  2. Only quoted and responded so I can go back and quote and cite this post when you eat crow. “Every Kirkland Signature product is guaranteed to meet or exceed the quality standards of the leading national brands.” "the Costco ball “travelled a shorter distance” at a range of driver ball speeds from average to elite players and “had less back spin” with 5-iron, 8-iron, wedge and half-wedge shots. The Acushnet testing also detailed how it found the Titleist balls to be “significantly more durable” during the company’s “standard durability testing protocol.”" Now i'm not a rocket scientist bu
  3. You last sentence is precisely why I played Titleist when I was in the golf industry. Balls were free and performance was as good or better to anything else on the market. When I left and started purchasing balls that's when I quit playing them. The performance was not worth the additional 20-30% over comparable balls that could be had. Yes I am including last years srixion balls for my price comparison. My question to you is would you continue to play them if you had to pay for them at 50-60.00 a dozen when a Srixion XV Chromesoft etc could be had for 30% less? Does it perform for you that m
  4. No one is giving them a pass but if Titliest provides Pro V1 golf balls to the top college teams (which if they don't they should) then all the top golfers coming out of college are advocates for Titleist Pro V1's. If they make it on the Tour they are likely still playing Pro V1's and not wanting to swap out balls as they enter the Tour they cut an endorsement deal with Titleist. If there isn't a huge disparity in money, a golfer might be willing to take a little less to keep playing the golf balls they have for the last 4 - 10 years. I agree 100% with what you are saying, and who is to bla
  5. Let's look at this a different way as rarely the tee up money is disclosed. There is hardly an individual on these boards who would not agree TM has more drivers in play because they pay a larger number of players than anyone else to tee them up. Why are you giving Titleist a pass on balls? This is a business out there. If Titleist is the market leader in golf balls and it is the highest margin product the sell they have a vested image to maintain in paying a larger number of players to use their ball. This make sense as balls make up a larger portion of their portfolio than clubs do. Let me
  6. I'll bump my own post here......Does Titleist pay players more to play their ball than other companies pay players to play their ball? Every time I have asked that question the only answers are something like they don't pay more per player but they pay more players. Or something like that. Which is what someone says when they are trying to put a negative spin on more players choosing Titleist. As far as I've ever been able to determine, a given Tour player can get paid roughly similar amounts to play any of several brands of ball. Which tells me that a lot of Tour player simply prefer pla
  7. You are missing the point. I care nothing for what they sell their ball for, Maserati sells their car for, or what PXG sells their irons for. There is a market for premium products and the debate on whether it is worth it or not is as old as time. This isn't the syntax of the debate. What most myself included are agitated about is a premium brand attempting to litigate a less expensive brand out of existence due to a claim that they are as good or better as the leading ball. To use your analogy this would be the same as Mercedes suing Hyundai for saying they have a luxury car that compares to
  8. I feel like you're making two different statements though: 1. Pro V1 vs $45 competitor who developed their own IP, Pro V1 not worth the premium (I get this one). 2. Pro V1 vs $20 competitor who allegedly did not develop their own IP which is how they are offering the product at such a discount. Apparently this isn't worth the premium either? Are you ok with the potential moral issues this presents if it's true? I feel like you're blending these two together, and it's kind of confusing. Apologies I will try to be more clear. I personally do not see the IP angle with the suit. Costco
  9. You are parsing my words. What was stated is that if you, me, who ever, thinks they play better with a ball than another that has value. Is that value 15-20.00 per dozen? That's for each individual to say. I have played their balls plenty and they are not worth the premium for me.
  10. I'm not really evening referring to Costco when I am stating the Market has caught up. Bridgestone, Taylor made, srixion, vice all make balls I have played that are on par with Titleist when I have played them and hit them in the LM. All of those can be had for better price points than Titleist. If you are saying every other ball Mfg has infringed on Titleist and this is why they are able to sell balls for 40-45 vs 60 I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Costco is an interesting study. As I understand it they purchased the balls from a Korean Mfg and were able to offer the pricing they did due
  11. So you have a very, very, long list of companies that you do not support, right.......I wonder how many you supported today that fit your ban list? Question for you. Is it better for you the consumer for titleist to attempt to improve their premium ball so it is truly better, improve their pricing so they can compete, or both? Or would you rather see them attempt to use litigation to justify their market price and stifle competition? If there is clear patent infringement on Cosco's part then Titleist is justified. We will have to wait and see. I believe Titleist competes quite nicely and I ha
  12. So you have a very, very, long list of companies that you do not support, right.......I wonder how many you supported today that fit your ban list? Question for you. Is it better for you the consumer for titleist to attempt to improve their premium ball so it is truly better, improve their pricing so they can compete, or both? Or would you rather see them attempt to use litigation to justify their market price and stifle competition? If there is clear patent infringement on Cosco's part then Titleist is justified. We will have to wait and see.
  13. Last nail in the coffin for titleist for me. Will not support companies that attempt to sue competition instead of getting better themselves.
  14. Nike Air Zoom 90 IT. As comfortable a golf shoe as I have worn ever.
  15. Went and used mine for the first time today. A few shots with dots but most just looking at carry ball speed and swing speed. Swingspeed seems way off. Any ideas for tightening this or is this what we can expect? 5 ft behind dead in line. Outdoor range. Edit: read the above post. Factoring 7% high on swing speed that would make ballspeed numbers more accurate with a 1.45 smash. So 128 less 8 mph would yield about spot on 174 ball speed at 1.45 smash.
×
×
  • Create New...