A contrarian view on distance from Titleist (contrarian to most CGA.com folks)

[Dan Herrmann]

Found an interesting column:

http://www.titleist.com/news/newsdetail.asp?id=343&category=technology

Here are the first couple of paragraphs:

It's not surprising that golfers and the golf media are captivated by the long hitting players on tour or enamored when a player like J.B. Holmes secures his first PGA Tour victory, as he did at the FBR Open, with an impressive driving distance average of 308.0 yards. Long drivers, throughout the game's history, have drawn the admiration of amateurs who only aspire to generate the clubhead speed and precision of such professionals. And there is no refuting the fact that the professional game has experienced a shift to the modern power game where some players have placed a premium on distance over accuracy.

But what is disturbing is when members of the golf media use their position to advance their anti-technology and anti-golf ball technology agenda to golfers without providing their readers the opportunity to learn from an opposing view. While free speech is a wonderful thing, and the golf media has every right to provide editorial opinions, it is disillusioning to know that the opposing facts are often conveniently overlooked. Where then do the 25 million golfers in the U.S. get exposed to a balanced perspective on the long-standing technology and tradition debate? And if the PGA Tour is going to measure the perception of the public relative to distance to consider whether additional rule modifications are desirable, and media coverage is imbalanced, then one can hardly expect golfers/fans of the PGA Tour to have an open mind.

Opinions?

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Every article in that entire section of the Titleist website is contrarian to most all opinions about distance on here. What would you expect from Titleist----advocacy for a distance rollback?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Where then do the 25 million golfers in the U.S. get exposed to a balanced perspective on the long-standing technology and tradition debate?

Interesting that they ask the question, but don't answer it themselves, which they could (and maybe did, I didn't read the link)

Another interesting point is that they could say that improved technology is part of the tradition of golf, which it surely is, since its been happening since the haskell replaced the guttie.  From there, it would be an easy link to the idea that they are upholding golf's finest tradition by improving the golf ball.  And, in many ways they are - harder to cut, easier to get in the air for average players, etc.

[Dan Herrmann]

Agreed...  Just found it intestesting that they were so aggressive in their writing.

I think that folks will buy Titleists regardless of their distance - the folks at Acushnet don't have anything to worry about.

I did find it interesting in another column where Titleist states that they're looking out for the interests of their shareholders.  That's an interesting POV I hadn't considered.  After all, isn't Titleist's primary mission to make their shareholders money - not to uphold the Game's traditions?

[Robert Thompson]

Dan: It is true that Titleist's parent company must have its shareholder's best interests in mind. But it is the responsibility of the USGA and the R&A to have the game's best interests in mind. Seems to me that those two organizations have dropped the ball, so to speak, on this issue and therefore the media are the only group speaking to it with any regularity.
How does a 10% rollback combined between the ball and driver hurt anyone? More courses are in play for tournaments, more shots have to be hit,  but the longest will still be the longest -- just in the 290 range, not the 350 range.
Even Tiger approves of the idea because he knows his longer irons are going to be better than the guys who flog it out there and wedge it on.

[George Pazin]

But what is disturbing is when members of the golf media use their position to advance their anti-technology and anti-golf ball technology agenda to golfers without providing their readers the opportunity to learn from an opposing view. While free speech is a wonderful thing, and the golf media has every right to provide editorial opinions, it is disillusioning to know that the opposing facts are often conveniently overlooked. Where then do the 25 million golfers in the U.S. get exposed to a balanced perspective on the long-standing technology and tradition debate? And if the PGA Tour is going to measure the perception of the public relative to distance to consider whether additional rule modifications are desirable, and media coverage is imbalanced, then one can hardly expect golfers/fans of the PGA Tour to have an open mind.

Opinions?

Here is my opinion: what a bunch of whiners.

All we see praised ad nauseum is the long ball. So a few writers have the temerity to suggest the long ball has some negative consequences (and it's really been very few writers, imho). That is hardly enough to offset the non stop praise on every telecast, or even make a minor dent.

Whoever at Titleist is writing this needs to grow a set. And maybe consider thinking about the childrens story about the guy that killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.

[Garland Bayley]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! The articles they author on that website are so one sided they sour any good feelings a knowledgeable person would have towards the company.

Shame on them.

I also notice they are happy to post any article from the media that is totally in agreement with their agenda and does not present the other side of the story. Apparently they approve of one-sided press as long as the one side is their side.

What hypocrits!

BOOM BOOM BOOM, play Bridgestone.

[A.G._Crockett]

What hypocrits!

BOOM BOOM BOOM, play Bridgestone.

'Cause Bridgestone isn't trying to make golf balls go farther?

[A.G._Crockett]

Dan: It is true that Titleist's parent company must have its shareholder's best interests in mind. But it is the responsibility of the USGA and the R&A to have the game's best interests in mind. Seems to me that those two organizations have dropped the ball, so to speak, on this issue and therefore the media are the only group speaking to it with any regularity.
How does a 10% rollback combined between the ball and driver hurt anyone? More courses are in play for tournaments, more shots have to be hit,  but the longest will still be the longest -- just in the 290 range, not the 350 range.
Even Tiger approves of the idea because he knows his longer irons are going to be better than the guys who flog it out there and wedge it on.

Robert,
I think the USGA has exactly the same mission as Titleist; the best interests of "shareholders."  The USGA, however, has a MUCH different and more varied set of goals among its shareholders than a private company's stockholders.  The USGA's shareholders don't just consist of 1500 people on a GCA website.  They also include people who struggle to get the ball airborne, struggle to reach the green, and struggle to afford to buy golf balls.  If the USGA deems it to be in the best interests of "the game" to protect the interests of THOSE shareholders, why are they wrong?

[Robert Thompson]

AG: But how is ramping down the ball by 10% going to impact the majority of golfers who struggle to get the ball airborn? Did they become single digits because of the ProV1? Clearly not. In fact, I bet pulling the ball back by 10% would have no issue on the average player at all.
I'd argue the USGA isn't thinking about its stakeholders -- it is just worried about the impact of a lawsuit by Titleist.

[Garland Bayley]

What hypocrits!

BOOM BOOM BOOM, play Bridgestone.

'Cause Bridgestone isn't trying to make golf balls go farther?

Because I haven't read anything hypocritical on their website, if they have one.
Because Boom Boom is from the Pacific NW like I am.
Because I have always rooted for the underdog.

[Chris Kane]

A rollback might hurt Titleist because at the moment they are the clear market leader, with over 50% of the market.  The ProV1 and ProV1x are considered by many to be the best balls available.

If the R&A/USGA change the rules, there's no guarantee that Titleist will hold onto their market share - it might be Callaway or Strata who release the best ball.