What's coming next from the USGA and R&A...

[mahonie]

1 minute ago, QuigleyDU said:

I am very not in the know on this situation, but I do remember it some.. Titleist won the court case, but that does not mean they didn't steal anything. 

 

TITLEIST WINS DECISION IN PRO V1 PATENT DISPUTE WITH CALLAWAY

Fairhaven, MA (March 29, 2010)– Acushnet Company, the golf business of Fortune Brands, Inc. (NYSE: FO), and manufacturer of Titleist, the #1 ball in golf, announced that it won a jury verdict in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in its golf ball patent dispute with Callaway Golf Co.. Callaway asserted that previous generation Titleist Pro V1 golf balls had infringed on four patents originally owned by Spalding and subsequently purchased by Callaway Golf. The jury agreed with Acushnet’s position that the patents in question are invalid.

“We are extremely pleased with the court’s decision, and we hope that this finally brings this long standing dispute to a close,” said Joe Nauman, Executive Vice President, Corporate and Legal, Acushnet Company. “We have explained throughout this process that Acushnet independently developed the technology in question. The Titleist Pro V1 family utilizes technology from 74 Acushnet patents and was first introduced to our PGA TOUR players in October 2000, well before any of the Spalding patents were issued in 2001 and 2003. We appreciate the jury’s careful consideration of the facts and the time they devoted to these proceedings. This verdict affirms our view that all claims in these patents are invalid – just as the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) has repeatedly found.”

In January 2006, before Callaway filed this litigation, Acushnet petitioned the PTO to reexamine the four patents in the suit. Since then, the PTO has repeatedly found that all claims of all four patents are invalid. During this process, seven separate PTO examiners were involved in evaluating the validity of these patents and all seven concluded that they are invalid.

Acushnet Company has a comprehensive product and process Research and Development staff and the Pro V1 golf ball franchise represents the accumulation of technology developed by Acushnet over a 20-year period. As the worldwide golf ball performance and technology leader, Acushnet currently holds over 715 of the nearly 2,000 active patents related to golf balls – more than any other manufacturer.

What Titleist’s statement failed to say was that they are not the Messiah and have been very naughty boys and have had to pay a licence fee to Bridgestone for all of their ball patents that they stole and used for the Pro V1.

[clevited]

31 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

I remember following Phil when he got the last incarnation of the Yonex driver he used before going to Titleist (pretty sure the year was 1999).  That club was ahead of its time for launch and killing spin.  He was teeing the ball way up and just murdering the thing that day.  Hitting the high launch lower spin trajectory we all take for granted now, and he was doing it with the Titleist Professional wound ball.   The calves were probably lacking back then though 🙂

 

Makes a guy wonder why he can't hit the ball straight today if that older stuff was so hard to hit straight lol.

[storm319]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

So ..... if the pro ranks from club pro up decided to ban certain clubs , you wouldn’t consider it a bifurcated rule set for the game ?    Interesting ... maybe that’s the route to take. 

 

Nard was saying that equipment bifurcation already exists today in the form of tour issued vs retail equipment. What I am saying is that is not bifurcation because both are subject to the same regulations.

 

Now if those regulations change, then yes that would qualify as bifurcation. Then you have the gray area of local conditions which I personally view as bifurcation but it still technically falls under a single set of rules (groove rule is a good example although that is temporary). 

[mahonie]

4 minutes ago, storm319 said:

 

You are now talking about different models. What you cannot do is make blanket statements that everything that is considered "tour issued" is drastically different than retail because that is not true (a sample of every different driver model needs to be submitted to the USGA for conformance testing in order to be put into play so all you need to do is look at the USGA conforming list to see what actually exists on tour). Are certain models different from retail? Yes. Are all? No. 

 

Next, do you really think that a 5-10% spin increase off the driver would resolve all of your current criticisms? Here is what it would look like if we consider Trackman's provided tour averages:

 

Current Ball Speed = 167

Current Launch = 10.9

Current Spin = 2686

+5% Launch = 11.4

+5% Spin = 2820

+10% Launch =11.9

+10% Spin = 2954

 

Carry Distances using the Flightscope optimizer:

Current: 273.4 yards

+5%: 273.3 yards

+10%: 272.9 yards

 

Not to mention that any change related to launch and spin could be circumvented with swing changes. The only ways to universally reduce distance would be to reduce speed (either directly or indirectly) or drastically increase drag. 

I’ve mentioned it before in this thread (I think). My mate got a Cobra Tour fitting and had ‘Tour only’ shafts fitted into his driver and 3-wood. He added 20 yards to his drives in the time it took the fitter to swap out the shafts and tee up another ball. You will not have access to those shafts...unless you know someone on the inside.

[QuigleyDU]

5 minutes ago, mahonie said:

What Titleist’s statement failed to say was that they are not the Messiah and have been very naughty boys and have had to pay a licence fee to Bridgestone for all of their ball patents that they stole and used for the Pro V1.

Then they sued Kirklands for their ball.. haha and the world has gone full circle... 

[mahonie]

Just now, QuigleyDU said:

Then they sued Kirklands for their ball.. haha and the world has gone full circle... 

My guess is that Kirkland are using Bridgestone patents and Titleist suddenly realised that they were still paying for them!

[QuigleyDU]

5 minutes ago, mahonie said:

My guess is that Kirkland are using Bridgestone patents and Titleist suddenly realised that they were still paying for them!

Kirklands was using a ball that was made by a Korean factory that sold that same ball in various forms to a bunch of different people. The clear ball is the same and the Kirklands ball. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by QuigleyDU

[Dr. Block]

10 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Makes a guy wonder why he can't hit the ball straight today if that older stuff was so hard to hit straight lol.

He couldn't hit it straight back then either...lol.   Funny enough though, the tournament I described above was the Western Open at Cog Hill Dubsdread, a course he's never played very well.  So I think he was experimenting with what he could do with the driver that day.  Just going full bore on everything.  He then, in that same year, and with that same driver, had probably his finest driving performance in a US Open at Pinehurst in his battle with Payne Stewart.  He tee'd it down and very much kept control over the ball in the final round of that US Open in 99.  I wish he would get back to playing golf that way again.  I think he would be doing better in the regular tour events if he did.   

 

As far as the older gear, It's my opinion that it was much easier to hit straight.  It created much more gear-effect direction correcting spin, even the first iterations of titanium woods were quite a different animal then the ones today.  Killing spin at all costs has created some wild drivers.  Probably why twist face has seemed to work so well for Taylor Made.  It brings back a little of the gear effect that we used to take for granted.   

Edited October 23, 2020 by Dr. Block

[storm319]

33 minutes ago, mahonie said:

It was actually Mickelson who threatened to leave Titleist if they did not launch a ball that was as good as the Callaway Rule 35 that he had been testing. Titleist then released the patent infringing Pro V1 that led to all that litigation when Mickelson was required to testify.

 

Patents in question in the Titleist v Callaway lawsuit had nothing to with the Rule 35 as they were related to Spalding patents that Callaway acquired in 2003. The litigation with Bridgestone even though Titleist lost was just like all other ball related IP suits, less about theft and more the US Patent office awarding patents to multiple entities that overlap leading to litigation that is primarily motivated on hurting a direct competitor's market share (Titleist is plenty guilty of this as well). 

[storm319]

15 minutes ago, mahonie said:

I’ve mentioned it before in this thread (I think). My mate got a Cobra Tour fitting and had ‘Tour only’ shafts fitted into his driver and 3-wood. He added 20 yards to his drives in the time it took the fitter to swap out the shafts and tee up another ball. You will not have access to those shafts...unless you know someone on the inside.

 

What ever shaft he was comparing to that was 20 yards shorter must have been a poor fit. Again we are talking about optimization, no shaft is going to provide a universal improvement (weight would maybe be the closest attribute but lighter is not universally better). Also, if a shaft technology could provide a universal improvement, the USGA would have regulated it by now. 

[mahonie]

37 minutes ago, storm319 said:

 

What ever shaft he was comparing to that was 20 yards shorter must have been a poor fit. Again we are talking about optimization, no shaft is going to provide a universal improvement (weight would maybe be the closest attribute but lighter is not universally better). Also, if a shaft technology could provide a universal improvement, the USGA would have regulated it by now. 

As related to me by my mate, and I’ve no reason to doubt him, he was fitted into several ‘stock’ shafts by the Cobra Tour fitter that slightly improved his distance over his standard set-up (that he’d been fitted for). The ‘Tour only’ shaft was night and day different.

[mahonie]

49 minutes ago, storm319 said:

 

Patents in question in the Titleist v Callaway lawsuit had nothing to with the Rule 35 as they were related to Spalding patents that Callaway acquired in 2003. The litigation with Bridgestone even though Titleist lost was just like all other ball related IP suits, less about theft and more the US Patent office awarding patents to multiple entities that overlap leading to litigation that is primarily motivated on hurting a direct competitor's market share (Titleist is plenty guilty of this as well). 

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I know that the Rule 35 had no impact on the court case other than it was the ball that Mickelson was going to go to if Titleist didn’t release something similar.

 

The way the story reads, it appears that Titleist knew they would have a patent infringement issue if they did release the Pro V1, but their hand was forced by Mickelson. If one of the marquee players left their fold, it was a sure thing that everyone else would have left them too killing their ball market dominance. Titleist have always been the company with the most to lose with any changes to ball regulation and it’s not surprising that they are one of the most vocal when it comes to rollback. 

[HappyGilmoresBoots]

Anyway, I didn't realize Louisville was still releasing wooden woods as late as 2001:

https://www.equip2golf.com/newproducts/2001.php

[storm319]

2 minutes ago, mahonie said:

As related to me by my mate, and I’ve no reason to doubt him, he was fitted into several ‘stock’ shafts by the Cobra Tour fitter that slightly improved his distance over his standard set-up (that he’d been fitted for). The ‘Tour only’ shaft was night and day different.

 

Just because he had previously been fit does not mean that there isn't another option that is not a better fit. Keep in mind that the shaft only really has influence on how the club head is delivered to the ball. So if the shorter shaft was a good fit meaning allowed him to deliver the club head to the ball consistently at the optimum strike location, then there were other variables at play that would account for the increase (head weight change, swing or static weight change, length, feel influencing how he was swinging the club, placebo effect, etc). 

 

Anyways, you can believe what you want to believe but this ambiguous, anecdotal example does not support the idea that tour issued equipment is universally better than what is available at retail. 

[QuigleyDU]

7 minutes ago, storm319 said:

 

Just because he had previously been fit does not mean that there isn't another option that is not a better fit. Keep in mind that the shaft only really has influence on how the club head is delivered to the ball. So if the shorter shaft was a good fit meaning allowed him to deliver the club head to the ball consistently at the optimum strike location, then there were other variables at play that would account for the increase (head weight change, swing or static weight change, length, feel influencing how he was swinging the club, placebo effect, etc). 

 

Anyways, you can believe what you want to believe but this ambiguous, anecdotal example does not support the idea that tour issued equipment is universally better than what is available at retail. 

It’s not universally better. Haha. 90% of your plays equipment “is” retail just fit to the player very very well..

[NRJyzr]

47 minutes ago, HappyGilmoresBoots said:

Anyway, I didn't realize Louisville was still releasing wooden woods as late as 2001:

https://www.equip2golf.com/newproducts/2001.php

 

They've never stopped

 

[oikos1]

4 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

I keep trying to say it.. it’s not about Bryson.

 

He has illuminated the issue by taking it to its logical conclusion, and he will influence others especially if the rules bodies do nothing. The best result for people like me is that he wins (because he deserves his success, I admire him hugely for thinking outside the box) and that Augusta at least will say enough is enough and mandate short tees, min lofts or whatever 

It would be quite shocking if the Masters, a "tradition unlike any other", were to become the first Major to host a tournament with an asterisk.

[oikos1]

4 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

I keep trying to say it.. it’s not about Bryson.

 

He has illuminated the issue by taking it to its logical conclusion, and he will influence others especially if the rules bodies do nothing. The best result for people like me is that he wins (because he deserves his success, I admire him hugely for thinking outside the box) and that Augusta at least will say enough is enough and mandate short tees, min lofts or whatever 

It would be quite shocking if the Masters, a "tradition unlike any other", were to become the first Major to host a tournament with an asterisk.

[Nard_S]

2 hours ago, storm319 said:

 

You are now talking about different models. What you cannot do is make blanket statements that everything that is considered "tour issued" is drastically different than retail because that is not true (a sample of every different driver model needs to be submitted to the USGA for conformance testing in order to be put into play so all you need to do is look at the USGA conforming list to see what actually exists on tour). Are certain models different from retail? Yes. Are all? No. 

 

Next, do you really think that a 5-10% spin increase off the driver would resolve all of your current criticisms? Here is what it would look like if we consider Trackman's provided tour averages:

 

Current Ball Speed = 167

Current Launch = 10.9

Current Spin = 2686

+5% Launch = 11.4

+5% Spin = 2820

+10% Launch =11.9

+10% Spin = 2954

 

Carry Distances using the Flightscope optimizer:

Current: 273.4 yards

+5%: 273.3 yards

+10%: 272.9 yards

 

Not to mention that any change related to launch and spin could be circumvented with swing changes. The only ways to universally reduce distance would be to reduce speed (either directly or indirectly) or drastically increase drag. 

And I say "Yes!" to increasing drag & reducing ball speed via COR.  Ball tech is multi-faceted, initial spin/launch is one aspect but not all of it.. They easily can make it play more "balata like" from tee to green and keep the superior short game characteristics going.

 

Taylor Made  has a separate design for TI driver heads, so does Callaway w/ their diamond series. "." & H stamped in irons. Bubba's Pings resemble nothing that is retail in practical use. Titleist at one time was awesome about custom grinds, they probably still are, cause Spieth's irons are not off the shelf. Hogan had specs that never made it to retail. . Molinari's Apex MB's can be had for $3400 from Miura. There's probably a lot more and I could probably add a few more but who cares? Point is you never played what they played and you do not play their course or anything near their conditions.

 

So, tour gear is not retail gear, never was never will be. So let's drop the pretense.

So, tour setup is not amateur setup, so let's drop that pretense.

Um, we play rec softball, they play at Fenway, so let's drop the pretense that bifurcation is a deal killer.

[QuigleyDU]

Ok as promised here is the test. You can see my signature below for the clubs used..

 

I hit some with my driver to provide a baseline. 
 

then pulled the driver shaft (45 inch), installed it in my original one driver. I cranked the head 2 degrees low to 11.5.

 

standard driver numbers.

 

 

 

Original one driver numbers set up as a driver.

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by QuigleyDU

[clevited]

6 minutes ago, QuigleyDU said:

Ok as promised here is the test. You can see my signature below for the clubs used..

 

I hit some with my driver to provide a baseline. 
 

then pulled the driver shaft (45 inch), installed it in my original one driver. I cranked the head 2 degrees low to 11.5.

 

standard driver numbers.

 

 

 

Original one driver numbers set up as a driver.

 

 

So first one is driver, second one is 3 wood with driver shaft and cranked down?

[QuigleyDU]

3 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

So first one is driver, second one is 3 wood with driver shaft and cranked down?

Correct.

 

off this tee height.

 

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by QuigleyDU

[Shilgy]

6 hours ago, Nard_S said:

I own gear from a Master's champion. I own the retail version of it too. I also own the 681 & the T model that Tiger made famous. They're different. I'm a toolmaker & accomplished one that. I can measure this stuff. Call it optimization, call it what you want, most all amateurs would quit with their setups and yet we hear, this hollow cry of "play what they play". You don't, get over it.

 

Back in day few spent $25/dozen for balls that were destroyed with one thin pass. Most did not play what Pro's played. It would not be much different today to ramp up a tour ball with a specific spin/launch spec that's maybe 5-10% higher. Guy Saturday can buy one but his Kirkland works just fine. Same thing, nothing changes for the enthusiast.

Most all played the top balls. Titleist balata, Maxfli HT series, Royal +6 were commonly used balata balls. What I don’t recall is the retail. Well over  your $25 is my recollection.

[clevited]

Just now, QuigleyDU said:

Correct.

 

Well, that settles that then lol.  Thanks for doing that, I was actually quite surprised.  Thought there would be a bit bigger difference.  

[Shilgy]

6 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

So first one is driver, second one is 3 wood with driver shaft and cranked down?

Not a three wood. The TM mini driver.

[Nard_S]

1 minute ago, Shilgy said:

Most all played the top balls. Titleist balata, Maxfli HT series, Royal +6 were commonly used balata balls. What I don’t recall is the retail. Well over  your $25 is my recollection.

Could be, I recall Tour 100's around 1990 being that but could be off by a few bucks.

[clevited]

1 minute ago, Shilgy said:

Not a three wood. The TM mini driver.

 

Oh my bad.  I forgot that thing existed.  Makes sense then why less difference than I thought.  Pretty cool.  Just need to lower spin a tad and we have basically no change.

[Shilgy]

3 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Oh my bad.  I forgot that thing existed.  Makes sense then why less difference than I thought.  Pretty cool.  Just need to lower spin a tad and we have basically no change.

Which is why the cries to make drivers smaller....275 to 325cc seems to be most suggestioned.....don’t accomplish anything to speak of. And this example is a non tour player performing an experiment. The pro would get it dialed in and lose essentially nothing.

[QuigleyDU]

6 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Well, that settles that then lol.  Thanks for doing that, I was actually quite surprised.  Thought there would be a bit bigger difference.  

I am not swinging my best today. Here are driver numbers from a previous day.

 

[clevited]

Just now, Shilgy said:

Which is why the cries to make drivers smaller....275 to 325cc seems to be most suggestioned.....don’t accomplish anything to speak of. And this example is a non tour player performing an experiment. The pro would get it dialed in and lose essentially nothing.

 

Yep, agreed.