[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

The "stymie" is immune from the advances in technology, hence you should continue to champion its return  

[ForkaB]

I don't know, Patrick.  I always have found the balata ball superior for that little flip over a well-laid stymie  

I seems pretty clear to me that the ProV1 and the X-FilesT (or whatever the new pelota is being called) are yet more examples of how the demise of the stymie has led to changes in technology, and NOT vice versa.

[Ran Morrissett]

Daniel, What are some examples of golf companies that you would classify as traditionalists that make either a club or a ball that has superior performance characteristics?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt, on a technical issue....
I was a great fan of the DT Wound because it was both affordable and had some good all-around characteristics.

I used both of thse balls in 100 and 90 compression, but noticed that the 100's seem to break a band inside and thus sort of develop a "pimple" (For the lack of a better word)

Was this a common problem with the DT Wound 100 that you know of? The ball could seriously develop this in less then one or two shots sometimes!

[Kevin_Reilly]

Matt,

Glad to see you back on the GEA and the anti-GEA (here).  Watch out, the only launch conditions these guys are interested in relates to the optimal launch angle to overcome a stymie.

Kevin (carrera89 on GEA)

[Matt Pavin]

To Tommy:

To the best of my knowledge what you are describing was not a common occurrence.  Goodness knows, we made and sold a lot of these over the years.  I seriously doubt any problem of significance could have been hidden or left undealt with for long.

Of course, it is now a moot point ... as the most recent of the wound DTs (DT Spin, which succeeded the DT Wound 90s and 100s) has just been discontinued.

The good news is that the brand new NXT balls should make you just as happy.  Both will feel softer.  The Tour should be as long and the Distance longer.  The Tour will spin as much with the mid and short irons and even more around the greens.  The Distance will spin slightly more around the greens.  Both will spin less off the tee.  Perhaps best of all, both should be even less expensive than the wound DTs.  These are quality products, aggressively priced.

--MP--

[Will E]

Matt-

Your company is great at marketing and while many on this post may find it in poor taste I'm sure these new ads will help you sell these balls.

Are these ads a result of Titleist's decreasing market share? They sure look desperate to me and I've never seen a Titlesit ad with this tone. The Pinnacle ads were funny, this one is offensive.
I know times are tough in the golf industry.
I also think your company would do well to "lower yourself" to Callaway's level when it comes to innovation. IMHO Titleist is great at taking a competitors product, copying it and then using relationships to sell it. (see new driver and Pro V1)

Geoff-
I agree with your comments regarding Mr.Uhlien. This is a public company concerned with bottom line.

[Matt Pavin]

To Shooter:

I linked here from elsewhere, not realizing the constituency of this site.  I feel a little silly, but understand better the rather extreme reaction of most of those who have posted.

Our June market share on course was 53.5% Titleist and Pinnacle combined.  That's unit sales.  Dollars generated was 59.1%.  These numbers are neither insubstantial nor cause for desperation.  The fact of the matter, however, is that the marketplace is changing.  Two companies with considerable marketing clout (Callaway and Nike) are new on the scene and making a lot of noise.  Our strategy must necessarily evolve and so, yes, the NXT ads adopt a different tone.  But offensive?  Eye of the beholder, I guess.

And whose driver did we copy?  The 975D revolutionized metalwood design.  It knocked Callaway from preeminence on Tour to also ran status in nothing flat.  Every successful driver since then has borrowed its higher cg, lower spin philosophy.  The J is our own extension of what we started.

Meanwhile, with the first patent granted in 1996, the Pro V1 is by no means a copy of anything.  And if you think that the Pro V1 is no better than its chief competitors and that marketing is what's responsible for its runaway success, you're doing a grave disservice to discerning golfers everywhere.  At the US Men's Amateur, where endorsements don't come into play, 261 players teed up a Titleist.  The nearest competitor could do no better than 13.  You know what they say:  you can fool some of the people some of the time, but ....

--MP--

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Matt,
Thanks for the info.

It was my understanding that the starting NXT was going to be in the $50.00 range. (this coming from a local golf store that had a brocure to make do for the Pro V1's they didn't receive.) If indeed this ball is afforable for the consumer, all the more power.

But.......

As you have noticed, there is a strong purist following here on GCA. In fact, I can only suggest that Titliest develop a golf ball that can embrace that end of the market which probably has a market share of .3%. We are a dying breed, and thats the unfortunate thing about it all.

I have to ask, and this is a question not meant to entice criticism or point the finger of blame, but where does this all end?  When will Titliest and the other ball manufacturers finally relinquish the fact that the golf ball, through technology and  design, modern green keeping practices and human conditioning, is just going too far?

Do you not agree that there has to be a resolution somewhere?

[Daniel_Wexler]

Ran:

I'm not sure I can answer your question because I don't follow equipment manufacturers terribly closely (not really my field of interest, as you know).  

Matt:

We'll be rehashing material from previous threads here so I'll try to stay brief.  Regarding the USGA, I agree with Frank Hannigan's oft-stated views that they needn't fear lawsuits as compliance with their rules are 100% voluntary.  I also feel that their ability to stay ahead of manufacturer's technological advances would be only marginally relevant if they would view golf as, to quote Sandy Tatum, "an identifiable, defined game."  That is, a game played with clubs and balls of specific dimensions and composition, period.  Anything else fails to comply.  Trying to constantly update their test criteria to keep up with manufacturer's technology strikes me as the tail wagging the dog.  There is little question that if such is their approach, they (and the game) cannot win.  Bottom line: The USGA is supposed to write the rules as they see fit, not to best suit the manufacturers.  If they lack the conviction to do this, they cease to be relevant as a governing body.

Regarding one's definition of a traditionalist, I would submit that a reasonable definition spreads a bit wider than "What we build is legal, so..."  To me, anyone whose products/actions/beliefs might be construed as substantially detrimental to the game as we have known it fails to qualify.  In such a context, I would suggest that modern equipment has resulted in the following five points.

1) Numerous classic courses (e.g. Merion) have been rendered obsolete for
major tournament play or, even worse, have been forced to make ridiculous alterations to remain under consideration.

2) Virtually all Golden Age designs lose much of their appeal for simple, recreational golf as hitting wedges into green complexes built to receive 5 irons diminishes immensely from golf’s strategic challenge.

3) The cost of building and maintaining courses skyrockets as increasingly more land is required, making an already expensive game that much moreso.

4) We lose all ability to compare the performances of today’s stars with those of the past.  Woods vs. Hogan?  We can’t even accurately compare Woods vs. Tom Watson.

5) The "average" player must purchase expensive new equipment more frequently just to stay competitive with his regular game.

In my mind then, any company whose actions foster such things cannot remotely align themselves with the word "traditionalist."

Make no mistake.  I don’t generally single out Titleist, nor am I suggesting that your company is entirely wrong to pursue the manufacturing course that it has.  Heck, from a pure profit-and-loss perspective, I might well do the same thing were I in your shoes.  But pure profit-and-loss is a very different perspective from caring about, or doing, what’s right for the game.

Tough also, I would suggest, to call yourselves traditionalists while running ads that make fun of us.

But I do admire you personally for stepping up to the plate.

DW

[TEPaul]

Matt Pavin:

You're a good man to come onto this apparently hostile website and discuss this issue!

I've read with interest your replies to the various comments. Things like price really don't concern me. That's the American way and has its own unique way of balancing out in the end.

The line of thinking of yours (and probably Titleist's) that really scares me starts on your Sep.30, 4:24pm post in your response to Daniel in the third paragraph that begins, "I also heard what you said about the ultimate culpability resting with the USGA!" The remainder of that paragraph is EXACTLY the history, logic and dangerous line of attack upon the USGA that the manufacturers (and particularly Callaway and Uhlein) has been using for some years now and is reflected not only in that ad but in Titleist's and some of the other manufacturers approach to this problem of increased distance.

When you (or Titleist) begin to say things like "the USGA cannot stay ahead of the curve" or "they cannot put the genie back in the bottle", as far as I'm concerned you have exactly addressed the nub of the real problem on this issue!

Firstly, the USGA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CURVE or at least controlling it (not the manufacturers) so that the game and its architecture will not become a joke due to out of control distance. And the "GENIE" is out of control technology that can and probably IS doing exactly that!

That is exactly what happened with "spring-like effect". Titleist informed the USGA that they had a product (or a new technology) that seemed to produce unexpected distance increases (the original realization of "spring-like effect"). The USGA did not discover "SLE", Titleist did and informed them of the phenomenon!!)

Refer back to my mention above about the test results of COR! That is when the USGA should have "held the line" at something like .78 or .79 COR (which was determined to be the non "spring-like effect" persimmon driver).

But they didn't do that! Why didn't they? Because Titleist (and probably many of the other manufacturers) had already started manufacturing or selling drivers that were determined to acheive COR of .86. So the USGA drew the line there (at .86) so as not to obsolete equipment already being manufactured and already in golfers' bags and also probably so as not to incur legal action from the manufacturers for hindering competition or bottom line or whatever aggressive and belligerent logic Callaway (and probably Titleist and others) threw at them.

This is exactly what happens when you say the USGA "reacts to things". Why did they redraw the line at .86 COR instead of determining that it should stay at .78 or .79? Because the manufacturers had "let the genie of the the bottle" and sold what was in effect non-conforming equipment!! So as not to obsolete entire product lines, obsolete product already in golf bags and so as likely not to incur deleterious lawsuits the USGA redrew (moved the line) to incorporate the "genie" and make clearly nonconforming equipment, conforming!! This is not something they wanted to do Matt, and you know that's true. It's something that the manufacturers forced on them with a loaded gun!!

This is exactly the danger of what I'm talking about above. The USGA is the entity that should test Balls and Implements, draw the line where they think it's in the best interest of the game and that's the line that any and every manufacturerer should conform to. But that's not what's happened in the last ten or so years Matt and you know it. You know it so well that you have clearly admitted it in that paragraph (of yours) I referred to above. That paragraph is honest on your part but it's also the sum total of what's been going on recently with the manufacturers, increased distance due to technology (and yes even probably with the permission of the USGA who has clearly been pushed and been put upon by the manufacturers).

For you to say that the USGA does not have the technology or the resourses to test and determine what and where the rules of B&I should be, but that the manufacturers do, is for you to rationalize that the manufacturers should take the position that the USGA has held all these years which is to monitor and regulate equipment to preserve that game. This logic is taking equipment regulation as it has always been done and turning it on its head! It is madness and you have to know that!

"The genie" is what golf manufacturers perceive to be their future--it's the best expectation of a solid bottom line in their future. "The genie" in not what the USGA wants for the game, although they are being forced to accept it for the reasons given above.

This should stop! The public should be aware where this is coming from and where it isn't. The USGA may have culpability but only because they appear not able to stand up to this issue because basically they have a gun at their head. We all do who care about perserving a reasonable game that does not include out of control distance.

Many of us would like to see this trend stopped and even reversed and there is no doubt the USGA would be the first to support that direction. That may never happen with the manufacturers, including Titleist, but at the very least please don't try to paint Titleist as a traditionalist--they are anything but that!

[Lou_Duran]

I too found the Titleist ad aggresive and uncalled for.  It was more of a pie-in-the-face to golf's traditionalists and ruling bodies than to Mr. Uhlien.  One has to wonder who it was really aimed at (and why) because I doubt that a large number of golfers care about the technology controversy.

In terms of developing new equipment and line extensions, Titleist is acting as any good company would.  If the regulators are lax in their performance (creation of regulations and enforcement), they should be held accountable. I don't know what makes the USGA tick, but I have been witholding my dues for a couple of months and may choose to withdraw my support for the forseeable future.

I do depart somewhat with the prevailing view of this site, in that I see the technology problem in the short run only significantly affecting a relatively small, select group of the golfing population.  It is my understanding that the average handicap has not changed appreciably in decades (any hard data on this?).  Despite all the techonlogical improvements, are the members at Merion finding the course much easier?  The argument for making golf easier for the masses is not unattractive.

If the problem is at the pro and national amateur competitions, perhaps as a stop-gap measure, the PGA Tour and sponsoring organizations could set more stringent equipment rules for its members and invitees.  Hopefully, the USGA and R & A will one day come to their senses, though I think that money has little to do with their seemingly lethargic response to the problem.  A more public, less afraid to get messy leadership is what is needed.  Titleist has made a public challenge.  The response, if any, will be intersting to obsevere.  

[aclayman]

Why is a minority, dying breed trying to curtail the natural evolution of the game?

I think if it is the manifest destiny to build 8000 yarders then all the classic venues will free-up for the minority to enjoy in a timely fashion.

And I wonder how many "good golfers" would voluntairily play a reduced flight ball if the manufacturers provided one. I can see from the "discontinued" info, that Matt Pavin provided, that Titleist, by no longer making tour balatas has little regard for their longterm customers. With close to a 60% market share why can't we all get the ball we want rather than some new batch of limited choice, probably due to some manufacturing(cost) restraint?

[Fact Checker]

Tom Paul--

The COR set by the USGA is 0.83.

[TEPaul]

Lou:

You may have a point about advanced technology not having much effect on the everyday golfer. But if it really hasn't had much effect, then I would, for the sake of argument, turn the issue around and ask you what then was the matter with the way things used to be (if there is no effect today with increased technology, as you've stated)? Can you or anyone else, including the manufacturers, make the case that golfers are having more fun today, for any reason  than they used to have? I doubt that you could, although clearly you and the rest of us are hearing from the Callaways and the Titleists that what they're selling and plan to sell can do that---evidence apparently very much to the contrary (as you've stated)!!

But don't you see that by withholding your  contributions and support from the USGA you are doing exactly what the manufacturers want all of us to do? They don't want and don't think they need a regulatory body like the USGA to stand between them and what they can manufacture and sell to the golfing public, including good amateurs and pros!

Many people, for some reason, think that the USGA is some entity that is the "law" that rules golf and that determines what golf rules, including B&I rules and regs are supposed to be. Fundamentally they are anything but (although they certainly do need, at this point, a good public relations firm to explain to the golfing public exactly what they are and are not)!

The USGA's long time rules and B&I rules and regs are built almost totally on voluntary compliance to conform to their rules and regs (with the exception of their 13 tournaments).

In this particular context of American golf and its rules and regs VOLUNTARISM is fundamentally synomymous with the word US! Essentially without US (our support) the USGA or any other regulatory body that might replace them cannot and will not survive. The manufacturers do not care to see them survive or at least to stand in their way in anyway--that has been made quite clear in the last few years.

Without the USGA to stand between them and the outer limits of technology what possible reasons would there be for the game's equipment to be controlled in any way? There would be absolutely no reason whatsoever and noone to do it. Unless you have some entity in mind that can replace the USGA and do a better job of controlling advanced technology you should support the USGA and what they're there for. If you care aat all about what technology COULD do to the game you should not only support them but help them stand up to the manufacturers, at the very least since fundamentally they are YOU, they are US.

I say all this assuming you are concerned about what advanced technology can do and in a very short time. You really can't find a tech person who will deny that in a matter of a couple of years the manufacturers can produce a golf ball that will fly 400+yds (an maybe more) if there are no rules and regulations.

That's the atmosphere that the manufacturers would be comfortable with. Would you?

[TEPaul]

Fact Finder:

Thanks for the correction. My point is .86COR, .83, .95 or whatever, it isn't .78 or .79, is it, which apparently has been determined to be no "spring-like effect" (the persimmon driver)?

No spring like effect was the line and the limit that Frank Thomas was pushing for but alas, the USGA did not go along with him and ended up firing him.

Why did they do that? My point is because they were and are under tremendous pressure to compromise with the extremely aggressive manufacturers and their push to produce and sell advanced technology. That's the point I was trying to make above. You know that's true! And I'm sure you know it's not the USGA's choice or recommendation to see the golf ball fly farther for any reason. They would gladly endorse a rollback if they could acheive it.

So .86 or .83 is virtually meaningless--but the direction they (all of us) is being forced into is not--and that was the point I was trying to make.

[Peter Galea]

Maybe it's time for golf course owners and operators to step up to the plate. After reading TEPaul's last post of balls flying outrageous distances, I can see the interval for players to complete a hole increasing-waiting for players to clear a 350 yard hole before hitting the tee shot, waiting for all par 5's to clear. This is certainly the case on Tour. It really hadn't hit me till my parner knocked it on the fringe of the 355 yard home hole yesterday. This transltes to only one group on a hole at a time-a definate revenue killer.

[TEPaul]

Pete:

What a neat and interesting point! One that might have real ramifications. Frankly, can anyone think of a single good thing that could come out of true unfettered advanced technology in golf and its architecture?

Well, I guess I could think of one good thing! It might help liability lawyers!

[Lou_Duran]

Tom:

I understand the tradionalist's argument, but think that change and progress is inevitable.  Today's equipment probably does make it easier for the average player to get the ball up in the air and propel it a few yards further.  Perhaps the change in construction and maintenance practices, specifically, softer fairways, higher rough (wall to wall irrigation), more sand, and faster putting surfaces are conspiring to offset the benefits of technologically superior equipment.  But even if the equipment fails to improve our scoring, the business is built largely on perception and the hope that we are just but one step away (a new club, a swing key) from a major improvement in our game.  I believe that there is some merit to Arnold Palmer's argument in defense of Callaway, though I too am concerned about courses such as Merion feeling pressured to make drastic changes in order to attract a national tournament.  I don't have an answer, though I do hope that the USGA leadership will come up with an appropriate stance.

Based in part on your defense of the USGA, I am reconsidering sending my membership fees.  Technology is not the only issue in which I think that the USGA has been slow to respond.  I have asked Mr. Fay to use his bully pulpit in an effort to chiesel away at the repugnant practice of mandatory riding at member clubs.  My request did not even merit a response from his staff.  I admit that I don't have a great understanding of the organization, and will rely on your representation that witholding funds worsens the problem.

Tom, I am concerned about courses becoming obsolete, and making them longer only compounds the problems of cost and slow play.  If the USGA is not successful in arresting the trend, why can't the PGA Tour impose a regulation ball and its own set of performance criteria for clubs?      

[Mike_Rewinski]

Hey Matt, I work at a club that has a 250 yard driving range. We are possibly going to have put in an 'irons only' rule because our neighbor at the end of the range is getting bombarded with range balls. They are knocking the shingles right off his pool house (275 yds). We are currently using Pinnacle range balls, do you have any suggestions for a ball that will not carry as far. When we built the driving range about 15 years ago we assured the homeowner that no one could possibly hit a ball into his yard except maybe a tour professional and we were right until a few years ago.

[Limited Flight Balls]

are sold by Wilson and Spalding. I've hit the Spalding balls and they feel real good, when you hit a driver it dives out of the sky. I think they are 80% flight balls. Maybe we can use them if we ever get invited to play Merion.

[TEPaul]

Lou:

I think your explanation and estimation of the way things are right now is a fairly accurate one--ie there are compensating factors that probably dampen or skew the true effects of advancing technology in balls and implements like softer fairways etc. The stats of the USGA could be skewed and suspect too for reasons that aren't even nefarious!

But I'm really not talking about today. Today there is little doubt that the manufacturers are pushing technology harder than they ever have--and they're pushing the USGA harder into accepting it too. The USGA has held the line as best they could but they have definitely back-pedaled too in  ways I believe I explained above. They aren't back-pedaling because they want to--they aren't doing it because they want to see the ball go farther or that they don't want to protect the integrity of golf. They are doing it because they are operating in the face of one helluva onslaught! An onslaught like they've never been faced with before.

Up until about fifteen years ago the USGA set the rules and didn't alter them much. The manufacturers lived within the rules so much more than they are today. My Dad worked for a manufacturer back in the 1950s and in that day and age all of golf was much more of a fraternity--they all knew one another and they operated so much more in concert for the good of the game than they do now.

Today the likes of Eli Callaway are introducing a whole new atmosphere. They are starting to suggest to the public that they don't need the likes of the USGA anymore. They say the USGA is trying to take away golfers' fun and any other ridiculous claim they can make or sell to the public to cripple, remove or cast the USGA (or any other regulatory body) into irrelevancy.

You even have people like Frank Hannigan (who used to be the USGA's executive director) who sits there and says that it really doesn't matter what the manufacturers do or say because the USGA is a non-profit organization that the golfing public will follow because they only ask for the voluntary support of the golfing public and the manufacturers can't really touch them for that reason.

Hannigan, to me was the beginning of the new age of arrogance and "in the clouds" thinking of the USGA! I don't really know if Hannigan thinks the USGA would be better off if they were reduced back to running no more in golf than the US Open or whether he is just blind to what the golfing public may or may not do. But if the golfing public does not follow (and support) the USGA for WHATEVER reason the USGA will essentially cease to exist and then there will be nothing that's independant to protect the game from commercial, bottom-line oriented business interests that have no interest at all in preserving the integrity of golf.

What has come before and up until today is one thing but what lies in the future could be another atmosphere entirely with the attitude of manufacturers like Eli Callaway. For the first time in American golf's history a manufacturer (Callaway) has tried to convince the golfing public to "screw the rules of golf entirely". He has tried to do one of two things; To push them (the USGA) by threats (with Palmer) or any other means at his disposal to go along with anything that HE thinks is right for golf. And it isn't even right for golf--it's only right for Callaway's bottom line. Or secondarily he would seem to be content to take the USGA out altogether. He seems to be saying that it's just fine for the manufacturers to take the place that the USGA has held for over 100 years. And even people like Matt Pavin seem to be unknowingly implying the same thing!

Callaway (or any other manufacturer) could threaten to sue the USGA but they are never going to win and they know it! They won't win because the USGA is doing nothing directly to hurt them--all the USGA is doing is asking the golfing public to VOLUNTARILY follow rules that they enforce in their own 13 tournaments. That's the way it's always been and everyone, including the manufacturers, has alway basically abided by that, until now.

So I'm sure you see where all this is going. The manufacturers have always pushed a little and maybe the USGA has back-pedaled a little but nothing like now. But if the USGA is gone or cast into irrelevancy anyone can see that technologically the sky is the limit, not so much with the clubs but with the ball. Who would be there to even think to control it? Then where would golf be?

That's a cycle that could happen in this dangerous atmosphere. There is no reason to think that the manufacturers, totally unfettered, would not push the game to the realm of being a joke-and they would then likely half destroy it, the interest in it, the delicate equations in it that have been mentioned in many ways on this site alone. They then would obviously lose money and would have to think of some way to back-pedal themselves and revive interest in it--and that's a cycle, I promise, none of us want to go to.

This isn't dreaming or doom forecasting in my opinion either. There is an acute analogy to point to and analyze--tennis! This happened to their amateur regulatory body about thirty five years ago. Maybe for slightly different reasons but not all that different. Rich Goodale might not like to admit it but it's nonetheless true.

None of us want to see the USGA go the way of the USLTA (the regulatory body of tennis--that once was). Amateur tennis is nothing like it once was and noone wants to see that happen to amateur golf and golf generally. Tennis lost much of its etiquette and tradition in this unfortunate evolution and it lost its most of its culture too. This does not need to happen to golf but it will if the USGA is gone or cast into irrelevancy--that much I can almost guarantee!

And that is why you should support the USGA to stay in existence and stand up to the commercial push and shove that's the current atmosphere of the manufacturers. We may not like or agree with the USGA sometimes but think what the game would be like if they were gone! Maybe technology and progress is inevitable but let's see if we can keep its advance as small as possible for as long as possible. It surely would be better that way!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()