State of the Game podcast - Joe Ogilvie

[Don Mahaffey]

Fascinating conversation with Rod Morris, Geoff Shak, Mike Clayton, and Joe Ogilvie.
I'm a huge fan of the SOG podcast, and this is one of the best, IMO.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2014/9/4/state-of-the-game-podcast-45-joe-ogilvie.html

[Stephen Davis]

Agreed! It was a fantastic interview. Talked about a variety of topics and it was really refreshing to get a former touring professional's true thoughts on those topics. PGA bigwigs watch out

[John Cowden]

Geoff to Joe:  "Go ahead, Joe.  They can't fine you here".

[David_Tepper]

Another excellent SOTG podcast. I laughed out loud when they talked about why there should be a 1-800 phone number people could call to tell someone about the score they have just shot.

[Josh Stevens]

Good that low brow aussie sarcasm translates so well. Hope for the world yet

Jo did seem to have half a brain but also very diplomatic. Would love to get him pissed as a cricket and hear what he really has to say

[Sandy Smith]

Finally got time to listen to this gem of a interview.
Joe Ogilvie has some really great takes on the game. 
Can't understand why State of the Game doesn't get more love here, it's the best thing going IMO.
Clayton and Shack do a wonderful job.

[Mike Bowen]

Sandy,

I also do not understand why it doesn't get more love on here.  I think the underlying message is that the big corporate machine has not made golf better.  I have found Geoff to be less of a firecracker.  Might have something to do with his new contracts with Golf Channel and Golf Digest.

They always have great guests.

[Sandy Smith]

Hey Mike
I think that because Geoff only played college golf he might sometimes defer ( which is unfortunate ) to Mike  Clayton and guests like Nobilo. I also think as much I love GCA that a lot of its members seem only interested in what this board provides.
State of the Game is a wonderful show that should be endorsed more.

[Mike_Clayton]

Sandy,

Nice of you to say so and I am glad you enjoy it.It is fun doing it and with Joe we seemingly could have easily done another hour.
We have some good guests lined up too - even one surprising high profile volunteer.

[JC Urbina]

Sandy / Mike / Don

I enjoy listening in, the podcasts are a great idea.

Mike Clayton, do you have Bill Coore or Ben Crenshaw lined up as a guest yet or are tandem interviews tough to pull off?

How about some golf course superintendents like Ken Nice talking about the success of low maintenance turf and sustainability or Sean Tully and his research on Mackenzie.

[Mike_Clayton]

Jim

Tandem might be difficult - but they would obviously be great. Do you think they would do it?
Ken would be interesting too - great topic.

[Ben Attwood]

I really enjoy SOG, and recently the guests have been excellent. I love having the contrasting views of the pros and the non pros on what playing the game means to them.

Surely, however, the most important aspect of the show is the talk about equipment, ball rollback and their interaction with architecture. The R&A and USGA seem to covertly know that something must be done but are unable to discuss it because of the vested interests in the status quo. Likewise the pros. It is only by people with a profile, having the conversation, that the game will find itself in a place where the distance issue has to be addressed.

Keep up the good work SOG!

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Ben, you nailed it.

The "mainstream media" is not able to talk about equipment issues.  The manufacturers threaten to and sometimes do remove their advertising support.  It is a subject that needs addressing and it should occur through discussion and input from the public and those directly involved in the game, like Clayton and Ogilvie.

Just played one of London's most revered courses, built in 1910.  Haven't been there in 10 years.  Probably one of golf's least altered properties.  I was distressed to see that they have added new back tees.

[JC Urbina]

Mike,

I think they would both enjoy being on your show.

Bill is such a pleasure to be around , he reminds me of a college professor.  He  would elevate the level of interest in golf architecture if you had him on by ten fold.

Ben offers the same level of knowledge  in golf design but with the " Major " golf component added in. Remember, they both set a new  standard in golf design theorem with The Sand Hills golf course. 

I will never forget our trip to the Sand Hills together, we played the nine hole golf course in Hyannis with one club. I remember you asking if the land in Nebraska all looked like the big Sand Dunes we were driving through. I can not remember the friend you were traveling with from Australia, was it Grant?

I know Ken Nice  would be interested.  He practices what he preaches, the simple application of complex ideas in turf management.

[Tom_Doak]

I will never forget our trip to the Sand Hills together, we played the nine hole golf course in Hyannis with one club. I remember you asking if the land in Nebraska all looked like the big Sand Dunes we were driving through. I can not remember the friend you were traveling with from Australia, was it Grant?

Jim:

That was Bruce Grant.

Then again, you can't remember the friend you were traveling with, either.

[Terry Lavin]

I will never forget our trip to the Sand Hills together, we played the nine hole golf course in Hyannis with one club. I remember you asking if the land in Nebraska all looked like the big Sand Dunes we were driving through. I can not remember the friend you were traveling with from Australia, was it Grant?

Jim:

That was Bruce Grant.

Then again, you can't remember the friend you were traveling with, either.

I chronically forget the name of the "fourth" guy in a foursome.  Even the day after the fricking round we've played, I sometimes forget.  My wives have always given me grief about that over the years.  An early form of Alzheimer's, I'm sure!

[Mark Fedeli]

Sandy,

I also do not understand why it doesn't get more love on here. 

I think a great many of us listen to and love the show, I know I never miss an episode; it's just more challenging in this format to transfer or reference a conversation from a podcast. 

[Mike_Clayton]

Jim

It was Bruce - I played with him on Sunday at St Andrews Beach and he is in good form.
It is amazing what you can do with only one club - if ever we needed proof 14 is way more than enough.

[Tony Ristola]

Enjoyed it... especially the reference to the stimpmeter reading of 1977.

The bit about three companies getting the lion's chare may be true, but will it be the same 3 companies in 20-years?

The reason why companies do not want the ball rolled back is it would open the floodgates of competition to their domination in the market. It seems the USGA & R&A are siding with protecting these companies at the expense of the game.

You put a limit on the ball by rolling it back, and that's the end of Titliest and the others major ball manufacturers gravy train. Balls would be sold for a fraction of the price, and every ball would be a performance ball. All it would take is a series of independent labs to confirm your ball is as good as Titliest in every way, and then it becomes a price war.

[Lou_Duran]

The reason why companies do not want the ball rolled back is it would open the floodgates of competition to their domination in the market. It seems the USGA & R&A are siding with protecting these companies at the expense of the game.

You put a limit on the ball by rolling it back, and that's the end of Titliest and the others major ball manufacturers gravy train. Balls would be sold for a fraction of the price, and every ball would be a performance ball. All it would take is a series of independent labs to confirm your ball is as good as Titliest in every way, and then it becomes a price war.

Come on Tony.  The primary reason (s) why the ball is not being rolled back is because the vast majority of golfers don't give a twit about old courses being transmogrified (nod to Steve Wilson) and rather enjoy playing with distance-enhancing equipment.

There is not enough money in the ball category for a conspiracy to succeed, and if you follow your logic to conclusion, what little mom-and-pop operation lacking infrastructure and technical know-how is going to effectively compete with Fila/Fortune Brands?  If balls and equipment were true commodities our bags would be full of component clubs and generic balls.  Instead, go to any low-end muni and you will see players knocking around premium balls with some of the latest, most expensive equipment. 

BTW, I once worked for a company which took no chances on brand management.  One of its major line of products had a hard time competing with any number of local producers in taste tests but never in the marketplace.  Marketing does work.  So does economies of scale.

Bifurcation is the only feasible solution, I think. 

[Tony Ristola]

Come on Tony.  The primary reason (s) why the ball is not being rolled back is because the vast majority of golfers don't give a twit about old courses being transmogrified (nod to Steve Wilson) and rather enjoy playing with distance-enhancing equipment.

I think it's fear of the courts... no conspiracy.

The masses aren't the ones calling the shots... the USGA and R&A are.

Nobody is talking about taking away their equipment... they can still use longer and lighter clubs with massive heads... only the ball would be rolled back.

There is not enough money in the ball category for a conspiracy to succeed, and if you follow your logic to conclusion, what little mom-and-pop operation lacking infrastructure and technical know-how is going to effectively compete with Fila/Fortune Brands?

 
No small Mom & Pop will do it. My bet is the challenge would come out of China. Once the machinery is set up... I think Titliest spent 70million for their urethene plant in the late 90's... that machinery can pump out the same ball for quite some time.

BTW, I once worked for a company which took no chances on brand management.  One of its major line of products had a hard time competing with any number of local producers in taste tests but never in the marketplace.  Marketing does work.  So does economies of scale.

Markets change too. RAM, MacGregor, Hogan, Spalding & Wilson used to be big players.

They may take no chances on brand management, but when the competition defines you, or the market is redefined, all those nice marketing plans don't mean much. You're in a new battlefield.

Marketing does indeed work, that is why you get independent labs (plural) to run tests, and get a few top tour players to use the new... cheaper... ball.


There is no need to split the game, as the masses would never know if people didn't tell them the ball now flies shorter.

[Lou_Duran]

Tony,

I suspect that the governing bodies are responding to the "masses" as opposed to the demands of a small subset of GCAers and even smaller one of industry folks.  The litigation issue is probably out there some place but perhaps the analysis is more in the vein that if it is not broken, why fix it (I don't believe that the doldrums in golf is related to the ball issue or the cost of playing golf; IMO, it is more due to over-regulation of the economy, government spending, and the impact on the discretionary income of the population which plays golf).  EPA issues including water as well as societal changes are more in need of attention and I think the governing bodies are addressing these.

Of course consumer demands change and markets adapt.  Companies that endure are at the forefront, never happy to rest on their laurels.  Titleist and its Korean owners can pursue the best strategies more easily than most start-ups (I think China's ability to enter and command markets over the long run is greatly overestimated- reference Japan with its much better educated, mostly homogenous population).

Bifurcation is a solution because the game of the elite players bears little resemblance to that of the average player.  I played with a 59 year-old guy yesterday who when he would catch his Pro-V1 solidly, he hit it close to 300 yards.  He most surely could tell the difference if he teed up a Titleist Professional instead, and I am sure his enjoyment of the game, and perhaps his desire to play regularly, would diminish.  IMO, it makes no sense to give a pill to 25 million players to "cure" an illness only afflicting a couple thousand.