Rollback and the Old Course

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sure, I have only worked in media for ESPN and have produced a ton of golf and documentaries on golf and sports technology but that's fine.

I could tell by how you misspelled Brandel's last name. 

Simple truth is that you're wrong about the costs. I'm sure Callaway or whomever could produce a crappy ball that meets the new distance rules pretty quickly, but there's far, far too much money at stake to do that. They'll have to re-think and optimize every component. Do they take speed out from the core, mantle, shell? What dimple pattern produces the optimal ball flight across not only a wide range of driver clubhead speeds, but across the sets of multiple players? It's going to be a big expense. Which, granted, I'm not shedding a tear for the Callaways of the world — goodness knows they've made plenty from golfers over the years — but it's not going to be cheap at all.

[V_Halyard]

Sure, I have only worked in media for ESPN and have produced a ton of golf and documentaries on golf and sports technology but that's fine.

I could tell by how you misspelled Brandel's last name. 

Simple truth is that you're wrong about the costs. I'm sure Callaway or whomever could produce a crappy ball that meets the new distance rules pretty quickly, but there's far, far too much money at stake to do that. They'll have to re-think and optimize every component. Do they take speed out from the core, mantle, shell? What dimple pattern produces the optimal ball flight across not only a wide range of driver clubhead speeds, but across the sets of multiple players? It's going to be a big expense. Which, granted, I'm not shedding a tear for the Callaways of the world — goodness knows they've made plenty from golfers over the years — but it's not going to be cheap at all.

I truncated it to B Sham and the math is truly simple at this point in development.
They have already run every model and wind tunneled it. Their composites and compressions are already calculated and could be loaded into their computer controlled manufacturing within a week.  It has already been paid for.

Their miscalculation is the marketing impact more than the tech. They are also more concerned with the precedent of allowing the governing bodies to influence their right to impact equipment changes than anything else.
The consumer has a short memory, and once they realize there is a cachet with the "Pro ball" it's like us hacks playing the back tees or using blades. It's a sales thing. They just couldn't afford to let the governing bodies make a decision and that is really one of the major flashpoints.  The legal teams are at the front of the speed dial on this more than the engineering.

Also I know how to spell Chamblee... I just chose not to. lol
Peace

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I truncated it to B Sham

  No you didn't.

Interestingly B. Shamblee was ranting

They have already run every model and wind tunneled it.

Under the current regulations.

This isn't a tweak under well-known regulations that have existed for decades. This is a rewrite. Again, yes, they could make a crappy ball that conforms for a little more than their annual R&D budget, but it won't be the best performing conforming (new regulations) ball they could create. They'd get their lunch eaten by the other ball manufacturers.

If it's a matter of plugging in a few numbers, why does Titleist employ 75 scientists just for their golf ball manufacturing? Why do they spend millions of dollars annually under the current regulations on golf ball R&D?

Their composites and compressions are already calculated and could be loaded into their computer controlled manufacturing within a week. It has already been paid for.

No.

How much do you think a mold for a new dimple pattern costs? Would "easy seven figures" surprise you? How many molds and patterns do you think they'd want to actually test out in real-world scenarios, wind tunnels, etc.?

[V_Halyard]

I truncated it to B Sham

  No you didn't.

Interestingly B. Shamblee was ranting

They have already run every model and wind tunneled it.

Under the current regulations.

This isn't a tweak under well-known regulations that have existed for decades. This is a rewrite. Again, yes, they could make a crappy ball that conforms for a little more than their annual R&D budget, but it won't be the best performing conforming (new regulations) ball they could create. They'd get their lunch eaten by the other ball manufacturers.

If it's a matter of plugging in a few numbers, why does Titleist employ 75 scientists just for their golf ball manufacturing? Why do they spend millions of dollars annually under the current regulations on golf ball R&D?

Their composites and compressions are already calculated and could be loaded into their computer controlled manufacturing within a week. It has already been paid for.

No.

How much do you think a mold for a new dimple pattern costs? Would "easy seven figures" surprise you? How many molds and patterns do you think they'd want to actually test out in real-world scenarios, wind tunnels, etc.?

And there are more than 30 versions of the V1 pro ball as well as anticipatory molds and models for a wide variety of compression and distances.  You're not wrong but this the math and molds are part of the updated computer manufacturing in both Mass and Korea.
The main concern is if they are going to have to sue more than how much it will cost to make.

[V_Halyard]

Sure, I have only worked in media for ESPN and have produced a ton of golf and documentaries on golf and sports technology but that's fine.

I could tell by how you misspelled Brandel's last name. 

Simple truth is that you're wrong about the costs. I'm sure Callaway or whomever could produce a crappy ball that meets the new distance rules pretty quickly, but there's far, far too much money at stake to do that. They'll have to re-think and optimize every component. Do they take speed out from the core, mantle, shell? What dimple pattern produces the optimal ball flight across not only a wide range of driver clubhead speeds, but across the sets of multiple players? It's going to be a big expense. Which, granted, I'm not shedding a tear for the Callaways of the world — goodness knows they've made plenty from golfers over the years — but it's not going to be cheap at all.

With regard to the media side, the reintroduction and reinvigoration of classics such as Inverness, Oakland Hills, Southern Hills and Cypress Point mean the world to premium sponsors. Rolex etc pay big dollars for premium courses.
Chick-Fil A could care less and pay the industrial weight ads, GCA is weighted by folks like Rolex and BMW.
More money/spend from premium and avid consumers is of prime value to Formula One, FIS Ski racing and Golf.
The challenge is balancing that with the need for more viewers and ratings by traditional Broadcast Networks.
Those needs are answered by Ford, McDonald's, Chic-Fil-a etc.
You may not get 10 Million folks watching the upcoming Am at Cypress Point but the Million folks that will watch are just as valuable to the sponsors.  The problem is that model doesnt neccesarly work for tradition NBC deal IF it has to be evaluated on view ratings.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

And there are more than 30 versions of the V1 pro ball as well as anticipatory molds and models for a wide variety of compression and distances.

Keep telling yourself these things. It's not a matter of pushing a few keys on a keyboard, and companies haven't done as much "anticipatory" stuff as you seem to think, because… they didn't (still may not) know what the new regulations are.

Again… how much do you think a new mold costs? The mold for a deodorant cap costs 7 figures.

With regard to the media side, the reintroduction and reinvigoration of classics such as Inverness, Oakland Hills, Southern Hills and Cypress Point mean the world to premium sponsors.

They aren't going back to Cypress Point (and a 5% rollback isn't much at all). Rolex doesn't care about GCA, they care about the viewership. Golf is still a niche sport, and the GCA nerds are themselves a niche of that niche.

[V_Halyard]

And there are more than 30 versions of the V1 pro ball as well as anticipatory molds and models for a wide variety of compression and distances.

Keep telling yourself these things. It's not a matter of pushing a few keys on a keyboard, and companies haven't done as much "anticipatory" stuff as you seem to think, because… they didn't (still may not) know what the new regulations are.

Again… how much do you think a new mold costs? The mold for a deodorant cap costs 7 figures.

With regard to the media side, the reintroduction and reinvigoration of classics such as Inverness, Oakland Hills, Southern Hills and Cypress Point mean the world to premium sponsors.

They aren't going back to Cypress Point (and a 5% rollback isn't much at all). Rolex doesn't care about GCA, they care about the viewership. Golf is still a niche sport, and the GCA nerds are themselves a niche of that niche.

USGA/R&A is going to CPC for Walker Cup and Again, for some sponsors, quality matters more than quantity and the venue delivers desired viewers. Some events are loss leaders, others are magnetic.
Are US US Open is at Pebble Beach or Oak Hill because it’s not at the RTJ golf trail.
If you think the Acushnet design and engineering business model has not anticipated the potential roll back, you’re not in tune with contemporary tech design and engineering.


It’s all good, because I’m not going to argue with you about projects and business models I’ve worked on.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

USGA/R&A is going to CPC for Walker Cup and Again, for some sponsors, quality matters more than quantity and the venue delivers desired viewers. Some events are loss leaders, others are magnetic.

And wow, what high-dollar sponsorships those are!

If you think the Acushnet design and engineering business model has not anticipated the potential roll back

I never said that they haven't "anticipated" them. I think I've been clear in what I've said, but if you want to put up a straw man and knock him over, be my guest.

You're drastically under-estimating the cost and difficulty of making a new class of balls that meet new regulations. It's not just pushing a few keys, running a few models.

[V_Halyard]

USGA/R&A is going to CPC for Walker Cup and Again, for some sponsors, quality matters more than quantity and the venue delivers desired viewers. Some events are loss leaders, others are magnetic.

And wow, what high-dollar sponsorships those are!

If you think the Acushnet design and engineering business model has not anticipated the potential roll back

I never said that they haven't "anticipated" them. I think I've been clear in what I've said, but if you want to put up a straw man and knock him over, be my guest.

You're drastically under-estimating the cost and difficulty of making a new class of balls that meet new regulations. It's not just pushing a few keys, running a few models.

I’m not underestimating anything I’m telling you it’s already been done so there’s marginal incremental costs.

They’re more focused on trying to figure out if they’re gonna sue their way out of it or they can make the best of the situation, and are the RNA in the USGA better arm legally to go to battle this time. The science has advanced to the point where it’s not as much of a stumbling block as the potential for litigation and protest.

Plus, I would tell you you are drastically underestimating the level of advanced scientific talent involved.
It’s more business affairs than engineering.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I’m not underestimating anything I’m telling you it’s already been done so there’s marginal incremental costs.

And having talked to several engineers at several of the different ball manufacturers (recently as well as for much of the last 20 years), I'm saying you're wrong about that. That it will still be an added expense, and that expense will start at eight figures. Which, again, boo hoo for them — I don't feel badly for them, but to pretend it's pressing some keys on a keyboard and they'll be up and running in a week is folly.

Let's put it this way: even if they're 60% of the way toward knowing what the best core composition/size, mantle composition/size, cover composition/size/dimple pattern is going to work, the final 40% or even the final 20% is the most costly part. They can computer simulate a bunch, but they're still going to have to make dozens of molds or reformulate a bunch of machines to produce dozens of different versions of the NEW rolled back golf ball. And that's where the expense is. Under the current regulations, they might produce two or three molds to try things out. It's a well established, well known problem space. That's not true of the new regulations (whenever they come out).

Again, nobody's crying for them, but let's not make "it won't even cost manufacturers much" a talking point because it's wrong and de-values your argument.

[V_Halyard]

I’m not underestimating anything I’m telling you it’s already been done so there’s marginal incremental costs.

And having talked to several engineers at several of the different ball manufacturers (recently as well as for much of the last 20 years), I'm saying you're wrong about that. That it will still be an added expense, and that expense will start at eight figures. Which, again, boo hoo for them — I don't feel badly for them, but to pretend it's pressing some keys on a keyboard and they'll be up and running in a week is folly.

Erik, pay attention

I never said it was easy, I said it was already done.  don’t mistake my love for GCA as simply an erudite endeavor. First I came to love GCA through battle to make sure a restoration was done properly. And secondly, with current Computer modeling, simulation, and horsepower, it is easier to do these models and come up with a prototype. So that’s a fact.

Yes, I love it, but my day job is in the trenches of digital, technology and media warfare for sports, film, and convergent Media studios. I’m from LA so I not going to   keep pushing your idiot button. We literally deal with shootings on site, artificial intelligence, digital technology, technical issues associated with the conception of new types of coverage for golf, Formula One, and other sports, and intellectual  property, theft, all in the same meeting.


And yes, the Golf  ball comes up as part of technical discussions based on carry, anticipated, landing zones, and other impact to production and infrastructure. Where do we go for answers? The R&A, USGA, and the golf ball manufacturers.
 
You’re pissing in the wind here and soaking your trousers, so I would put your shit away.

I have sat in labs while filming, detailed and confidential sports science and technology sessions more times than you’ve probably struck a golf ball. Golf technology, football, baseball, advanced aerospace, we’ve been through it all we’ve seen people pass out, puke, arteries, stretch, and golf balls explode.

Sports and entertainment at the level we are discussing is a media and marketing driven business, don’t get it twisted and don’t be confused. I have spoken with and advised, sports technology and media companies for 30 years, and am actively involved in technically oriented media in motorsports, Golf broadcasting, golf architecture, sports science technology, and artificial intelligence.

I’m not gonna argue with you. Believe what you will and have at it. Having run new media, technology, and R&D for part of Disney studios which included collaborating and advising ESPN, our labs at Imagineering, ABC sports, and the studios, my team advised engineered and in some cases helped design both the technical and creative business models for a number of sports related technology and Media projects. I really am not guessing. I’m just not going to argue anymore.

You’re overstepping your assumed expertise with me, which is fine, that’s your right, but stay in your lane before you cause an accident.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik, pay attention

Could say the same to you.

I never said it was easy, I said it was already done.

It is not (easy or done).

And secondly, with current Computer modeling, simulation, and horsepower, it is easier to do these models and come up with a prototype. So that’s a fact.

That it's costly is also a fact. That the landscape will shift and they'll want to do the last 40% or last x% is also a fact.

Yes, I love it, but my day job is in the trenches of digital, technology and media warfare for sports, film, and convergent Media studios. I’m from LA so I not going to  keep pushing your idiot button. We literally deal with shootings on site, artificial intelligence, digital technology, technical issues associated with the conception of new types of coverage for golf, Formula One, and other sports, and intellectual  property, theft, all in the same meeting.

I'm not reading anything in there where you're an engineer.

You’re pissing in the wind here and soaking your trousers, so I would put your shit away.

Look in the mirror.

I’m not gonna argue with you.

What do you call the last 10 posts?

Believe what you will and have at it. Having run new media, technology, and R&D for part of Disney studios which included collaborating and advising ESPN, our labs at Imagineering, ABC sports, and the studios, my team advised engineered and in some cases helped design both the technical and creative business models for a number of sports related technology and Media projects.

That's so loosely related to actual engineering golf balls that it's funny to me how you think that any of that carries much weight.

You’re overstepping your assumed expertise with me, which is fine, that’s your right, but stay in your lane before you cause an accident.

No, I'm just going by what you've said, and giving more weight to the actual engineers with whom I've talked over the years. One of them, just this morning, sent me "" in response to one of your posts before elaborating on how off base you were. I'm choosing to trust that person, who isn't in media but is actually going to have to help create the next version(s) of their company's ball(s), over you.

This quote is sufficiently recent, and sufficiently bland enough it doesn't speak to who (or which company they work for) said it. The context was the required real-world testing of golf balls and how hinky it can be:

“We can computer model all we want, but until we make dozens of prototypes and test them all, we won’t really know what we have. That prototyping — the actual manufacturing of the prototypes, not on the computer — is where the expense lies. We can do two or three of the next gen of a current ball, but this is going to be a new landscape.”

So, yes, I'm listening to those people. I give their opinions more weight about what will actually go down over yours.

----------

At the end of the day, what I don't get about your position is… what's the point in the grand scheme of a "rollback"? Who cares if it costs Callaway or Titleist or TaylorMade or Bridgestone $100M or $1M? Those companies care, and golfers may care if they use it as a justification to raise prices yet again… but what is the point of saying "it won't cost them much, they've already done it?" What's the point?

Let's pretend that you're completely right, and the engineers and others have been talking out of their asses to me all this time. So? What does "it won't cost them much" change or make better (or worse) about any of this rollback stuff?

[Ben Hollerbach]

The USGA/R&A already commissioned the design and fabrication of reduced flight golf balls. Do we have any idea how much they spent to make the NP-301 and the NP-500?

Recently Bridgestone developed a new ball specifically for long drive. this might be the most analogous recent example of going off the page in golf ball development as they were working on an entirely new end use spec requirement. Does anyone have any idea how much that development costs?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Recently Bridgestone developed a new ball specifically for long drive. this might be the most analogous recent example of going off the page in golf ball development as they were working on an entirely new end use spec requirement. Does anyone have any idea how much that development costs?

How do you figure? That golf ball still had to conform to the existing regulations. They just didn't have to worry about making it spin off wedges or the descent angle off a 7-iron.

[V_Halyard]

Recently Bridgestone developed a new ball specifically for long drive. this might be the most analogous recent example of going off the page in golf ball development as they were working on an entirely new end use spec requirement. Does anyone have any idea how much that development costs?

How do you figure? That golf ball still had to conform to the existing regulations. They just didn't have to worry about making it spin off wedges or the descent angle off a 7-iron.

Ha, you're cycling, got to get some work done, may you enjoy the world in which you live.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Ha, you're cycling, got to get some work done, may you enjoy the world in which you live.

I do enjoy the world. The Bridgestone ball is a variation under the current rules, not an entirely new ball under different regulations where they have to worry about all-around performance.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

... and still no one responds to a golf ball whose material constituents are 100% recyclable. Is this a case of head in the sand or I don't really care? 😕

[Thomas Dai]

... and still no one responds to a golf ball whose material constituents are 100% recyclable. Is this a case of head in the sand or I don't really care? 😕

It’s a fair point JCS. There’s approx 1.2 billion golf balls made each year. And they don’t disappear as if by magic so even if hiding from obvious view they and decades worth before them are all still out there somewhere …. and they ain’t degrading.
Nice subject for the environmental and anti-golf lobby should they wish to pursue it.
Atb

[Tim Martin]

... and still no one responds to a golf ball whose material constituents are 100% recyclable. Is this a case of head in the sand or I don't really care? 😕

It’s a fair point JCS. There’s approx 1.2 billion golf balls made each year. And they don’t disappear as if by magic so even if hiding from obvious view they and decades worth before them are all still out there somewhere …. and they ain’t degrading.
Nice subject for the environmental and anti-golf lobby should they wish to pursue it.
Atb

https://youtu.be/ESwKuITi1_k?si=9a90tUZI2X4w4NZD