[Tony_Muldoon]

Gutta Percha, Haskell, Wound Balata & now Pro V1.

Do the new balls (not just the Pro V1) constitute as significant a leap forward for golf as the other's did?

If so, will they lead to a new growth in popularity just as the predecessors did?

[JESII]

Tony,

Intersting question.

Did those prior "great balls" actually increase popularity of the game? How could that be measured? What characteristic of the ball made the game more attractive to non-golfers?

[Ryan Crago]

certainly the move from the feathery to the gutta percha increased the popularity of the game being cheaper, and considerably more durable.

[JESII]

That makes sense.

[JohnV]

I think the list should be:

Feathery
Gutta Percha
Wound (of which the Haskell was the first and the Titleist Balata the most famous)
Two piece distance (Top Flite, Pinnacle)
Solid core performance (two piece and multi-cover balls like the Pro V1)

The Feathery to the Gutta was a price, durability and performance gain.  It brought the game to the masses.

Gutta to Wound was a performance gain (not sure about price)

Wound to Two Piece was a price, durability and distance gain with loss of control.

Wound to Solid Core was a durability and distance gain with no loss of control

[JESII]

Is there any reason to believe that the performance related enhancements actually increase participation in the game?

[JohnV]

I think that cost does more to increase participation than performance.  Performance might help the already active golfer enjoy himself more.

[JESII]

I'd agree with that. In this day, performance related marketing must be designed to compete for the current market of players.

Do any ball manufacturer's market a low cost ball with the intent of drawing non-golfers to the game? I wonder if that has happened since the development of the Haskell.

[JohnV]

I doubt that a cheaper golf ball will bring people to the game today.  It might get those that are already in the game to play more.  If I'm losing 3 balls a round and they cost me 12.50 I'm going to play less than if I'm losing 3 and they only cost me 3.00.  

Or if the ball I'm playing gets cut or scuffed up after 5 or 6 holes so that I have to throw it out I'm also going to play less with the expensive balls.  That is why the Pro V1 is "worth" the $50.00 a dozen to the medium capability golfer.  He thinks it works better that the Top-Rock and it doesn't cut up like the balata balls of the past.

[JESII]

John,

The word "thinks" in your last sentence is where the marketing comes in.

Would a ProV clone that sold for $20/dozen bring new people to the game? Nah. It might encourage you to play more though, I can see that. Where is that ball?

[Rick Shefchik]

I think John's got it right -- the ProV1 is for current players, and it isn't moving the needle as far as bringing new players into the game.

The novice/hacker has had a good, cheap product array for quite some time now, and if my personal observations mean anything, he's not even slightly tempted to lay down $12 for a sleeve of anything, except beer.

[Bill_McBride]

I very clearly remember around 1959 asking my club pro if the balata balls cut easier than the ones I'd been playing, and he said, "How would I know?"  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()