[John_Conley]

The consensus opinion here is that the architectural integrity of many great designs is sacred and something should be done to preserve these courses.

Several people think that the distance golf balls travel as a result of improvements in clubs and/or balls is the biggest issue facing this preservation movement.

Have you ever thought about what a terrific job the club and ball manufacturers have done?  Virtually every post on the topic pays them (Callaway, Titleist, Bridgestone, Spalding, Taylor Made, Ping, etc...) a back-handed compliment.  Why not just make it a direct compliment?

Collectively, the manufacturers of golf equipment have done a terrific job of improving their wares.[/i]  There, I said it.

Is the role of an equipment maker not to make the best equipment they can, provided they stay within the regulated range?  The Overall Distance Standard has not changed in the last decade, although many on GCA clearly wish it would!  There is no rule for maximum Driver length or (until recently) maximum Driver size.  There is a limit on the Coefficient of Restitution, which we know is going to operate along a sliding scale from .830 out to .860 and back again.

Since you can't disagree with my understanding of the role for a FOR-PROFIT equipment manufacturer in a non-Socialist/Marxist country, we need to commend them for doing such a good job of improving equipment that it could be deemed TOO GOOD of a job.

I know the marketing approach is sometimes offensive, but some of the industry's biggest homeruns in the last 24 months occurred without overt advertising dollars.  The Precept Lady was such an unlikely success that even Bridgestone at first wondered why sales spiked.  The Pro V1 from Titleist gained favor from (paid) player testimonials and questionable journalism on the part of TV announcers, some of whom are paid by Titleist.

My belief is that increases in length are coming from a few different sources.  One is that clubs are more forgiving, allowing much more aggressive swings.  The Modern Swing sure doesn't resemble the fluid motion and rhythmic tempo of just 20 years ago.  Another increase comes from manufacturers improved ball design that allows us to play some variety of "distance ball" (in the lingo of a decade ago) and have much less of a trade-off on playability.

Case in point.  Titleist no longer makes the Tour Balata, or any "wound" ball.  de riguer for the low handicapper just ten years ago, no current offering has the same spin characteristics.  Some are close enough, especially when coupled with the added distnace.  Ball design is no more than a series of tests to develop ways to minimize tradeoffs.  I contend we are all playing some version of the Slazenger "marble", Pinnacle Gold, or Top Flite XL from the late 80s with vastly improved playability.

To those who say a Pro V1 is "fifteen yards longer", I can only ask "Longer than what?"  Virtually everyone I ask is comparing it to the Titleist wound offerings - Professional or Tour Balata, when a fair comparison would be the Callaway 30, Precept Double Cover, or Strata.

Like them or not, I can't imagine anyone saying the manufacturers have done anything less than a great job.  If you believe it is their role to defend Classic design or advance the field of Golf Course Architecture you are obviously not a shareholder.

[Bruceski]

You're right. It's not the fault of the manufacturers. It's the fault of the governing bodies of golf. All sports have rules which limit the potential of their associated technology. Boxers can't put lead in their gloves. Tennis standardizes its ball, as does basketball (you don't see basketball players using their own ball while shooting free-throws). My understanding is that Nascar also standardizes the design and parameters of the racing car. Why can't golf standardize its technology? If only for its own sake? Perhaps I'm wrong though, and 300 yd straight drives with resulting wedges into greens is good for the game. It sure allows Tiger and Phil to appear as supermen. But wouldn't they still be supermen if they played the same equipment that protects the intent of the original course architect?

[JakaB]

Penthouse and Hustler do a hell of a beaver shot...but I still ain't eatin little green apples this summer.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Isn't most criticism directed at the USGA (for its failure to do something about the standards), not the manufacturers?

Commending the manufacturers is like (borrowing from Bobby Jones) commending someone for not robbing a bank.  They are doing the most they can do to maximize profits within the guidelines that have been set by the ruling bodies.  In my mind it is the ruling bodies that are open to criticism.

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

As I mentioned before, I seem to recall Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Johnny Miller, and Tom Watson taking almost half-swing, pitty-pats at the ball back in the 60s-80s, before they could finally swing fully with confidence due to technology.  

As far as lauding the engineering departments of the equipment companies for creating further flying balls and longer-hitting clubs, I would think that the multi-millions of dollars that were invested in a rapidly growing game during the economic boom times of the 90s may have been a factor.  They were able to determine the flaws in the USGA's testing methods, and capitalize on them.  Hooray.  

[A_Clay_Man]

I was always under the impression that golf club technology hit a pinnacle in the early 60's.

If that premise is true than the advancements you'd like to commend are marginal at best.

Commend man, for it his advancement in knowledge and physical ability that is responsible for what you site.

[Dan Kelly]

Mike --

You write: "I seem to recall Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Johnny Miller, and Tom Watson taking almost half-swing, pitty-pats at the ball back in the 60s-80s, before they could finally swing fully with confidence due to technology."

Funny ... but!

Surely you're not contending -- are you? -- that the recent and current generations of clubs and balls aren't considerably more "forgiving" (for Tiger Woods, as well as for you and me) than the clubs and balls those guys used.  

John --

Points well taken, overall.

No, I am not a shareholder (so far as I know) -- and if I were, I wouldn't think the manufacturers' job would be to defend classic architecture. I'd think their job would be to push, push, push, push, push. Sell, sell, sell, sell, sell. Innovate, innovate, innovate, innovate, innovate. That's what they do, and they do it well -- and I feel neither a need to commend them for it nor a need to condemn them for it.

They are who they are. And more power to them! Let them push, push, push, push, push on ahead, getting richer and richer and richer -- letting Joe Blow hit it farther and farther and farther in his Saturday cart-ball outings ... while the very best players (the pros and top amateurs) and those of us who appreciate values other than length are playing our Competition Balls.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan,

No, my point was to challenge John's contention that, "One is that clubs are more forgiving, allowing much more aggressive swings.  The Modern Swing sure doesn't resemble the fluid motion and rhythmic tempo of just 20 years ago."

I don't seem to recall playing with hickory in the 70s and 80s, but somehow, I've gained about 30 yards since then despite the fact that my swing is uglier, shorter, and I'm not half as flexible in my mid-40s as I was in my 20s..  
  

[Bruceski]

Shivas,

I guess you didn't notice that your putter strikes the ball 15 yds longer, too.  

[TEPaul]

John Conley:

Congratulations! That's probably the most naive or the most pollyanaish opinion I've seen to date on the distance issue/golf architecture, the regulatory bodies and the manufacturers! Ultimately, I'd probably prefer to commend the Huns for doing a efficient job of sacking Rome!

Three of your last paragraphs, which appears to be a recent revelation to you, are an excellent description of exactly how the manufacturers turned basically a 1980s Pinnacle into something very much like a 1980s Titleist balata.

Forget about the ODS and these balls adhering to it! Maybe they do in a technical "letter of the rule" (considering the anything but sophisticated USGA test procedures of the last 25 years and to date) sense but they very much do not conform to the spirit of what the USGA and R&A clearly meant to try to accomplish with their ODS rules and regs.

So in a sort of general sense I think you've just figured out exactly how the manufacturers have taken complete advantage of the regulatory bodies in about the last ten years.

Basically, John, they completely outfoxed them by sophisticated testing and manufacturing technology. Far more sophisticated testing and technology than anything the USGA has apparently hereotfore been aware of or ever expected and certainly ever itended it to be!! This has been a bit like the fox who swiped the eggs out from underneath mother hen so cleverly she thinks she's still sitting on them!

And for that you'e suggesting we commend the manufacturers for doing a good job?  You go ahead, but not me--not in the context of the manufacturers doing anything good for the future of golf and the future of golf architecture.

But I will help you commend the manufacturers for doing something for their stockholders although if I was a stockbroker I think I might advise my stockholding clients to get ready for the time these manufacturers destroy most of the essence and popularity of the game which will certainly show eventually in their stock prices.

What you may not understand, John, is that until relatively recently all the people in golf including the manufacturers were basically either friends or of somewhat the same mindset as to what was good for golf. That changed dramatically with the merging and acquiring of these original golf manufacturing companies by other companies and entities that had very little understanding or concern for what was good for the future of the game.

I'll comend them with you for doing right by their stockholders many of which probably have no more interest in golf and certainly in the future of architecture than they do.

But I'm sure not going to commend the manufacturers for doing right by golf or its architecture. And if you are, you must be one of the best Pollyanas I ever heard of.

[John_Conley]

Tom Paul:

You just did it.  Gave them an around the way compliment.  They've done a good job making clubs and balls perform better.

YOU, however, don't think that's their role.  On some level I agree.  You've obviously been spared my beliefs on the health of the sport and astonishing unwillingness of nearly EVERYONE to do something about it.  I've shared my thoughts with Jim Nugent, Wally Uihlien (in an e-mail), Dale Gardner and more.  Separate discussion to me.  I wouldn't confuse the role of an engineer designing golf clubs in a competitive market with the role of an industry ombudsman.

Recent revelation?  You don't know me at all to say something like that.  I was sold on solid over wound when the best player I knew played a Maxfli M.D. in the late 80s and made a great case for his doing so.  You agree with me that these balls aren't LONGER, just BETTER.

If you measure the Pro V1 versus a Tour Balata, which was not the longest ball to begin with, is it a fair comparison.  Perhaps golfers meant to say, "The balls I am willing to play have gotten longer."

Tour Balata fans used to defend their length by saying I outhit them because I used a (fill in the blank) ball.  Either the solid ball was longer than the wound ball before or the "new" solid (Pro V1 for sake of discussion) is longer than the wound ball and the increase in distance from balls has been realized mostly in the last few years.

Destroy the popularity of the game?  My thesis is that golf is essentially where tennis - a once popular sport - was 20 years ago.  The gulf between the average player and the professional is widening and it sure wasn't healthy for tennis participation when the proliferation of junior academies came along.  Too many potential participants quit too early when the realize how far behind SOME players they are.

Do I think the golf club manufacturers (collectively) should contribute to the growth initiatives?  Absolutely.  Will I fault (or fail to credit) the men and women who design clubs and balls for the work they do because their employers have been reluctant to fund golf's growth?  Absolutely not.

It gets sticky if you ask me for a specific action plan that is workable.

I asked a friend what happened at the Golf 20/20 expo and who was going to fund their programs.  He said, "That's the funny thing, everyone points fingers and says it is someone else's responsibility."

It is glaringly obvious that SOMEONE needs to increase participation, only possible if costs are reduced at the entry level.  What category of course has seen the most growth?  Upscale daily-fee.

Our Chicago Economist will have some insight as to why the Macro and Micro decisions made in golf are so far apart.  I may not have the jargon down, but I know the problem.

[David Kelly]

At $450 for a driver, and $50 for a dozen golf balls shouldn't the equipment be greatly improved?

[Tim Weiman]

John Conley:

You must be out of your mind.  Why should we as consumers commend manufacturers for contributing to the escalating costs of playing golf?

I've worked in two industries: petroleum and computers.  No one ever suggested these industries be commended for making more expensive products.  To the contrary, active consumer interests always pushed for lower prices.

Why should golf be any different?

There is no need for guys like you to encourage manufacturers to think they are doing a good job, so good that they should use some of their muscle to intimidate regulatory bodies.

John, you just don't get it, at least not the consumer point of view in a "non-socialist/Marxist country".

[Jim_Kennedy]

Manufacturers have done an extremely good job of identifying and using new materials and construction techniques in the creation of all golfing equipment. They were never discouraged in this endeavour and followed guidelines set forth by the USGA.
To the major companies discredit they are compressing what once were 33% margins over a 3 year cycle into 10% margins in a 1 year cycle. This mentality has forced them to become very annoying as it pertains to the game. It coincides perfectly with the takeovers of these companies by number crunching bottom liners.    
As for the cost of equipment: the Titleist irons you buy today for $618.00 translate to $200.00 if bought with 1976 dollars. The lamentable fact is that wages have lagged behind inflation of goods by 1/3. Put another way, if $200.00 was your weekly take home pay in 1976 your take home pay in 2002 should be $618.00 but it's not, it's only $400.00.
The equipment isn't more expensive, wages haven't kept pace.

[John_Conley]

Tim:

I don't find golf equipment that expensive.  A used set of two-year old irons runs about $250 and a driver is about $200 or less two years after it came out.  

If you have to buy new equipment, 8 irons run about $800 and a new Driver is $400.  Fairway woods for $175, wedges for $110, and putters for $100-300.  Considering the usable life for any of these is at least ten years, it isn't like equipment is the most costly component of your golf spending.  Assuming you play more than 20 rounds a year, access dwarfs the cost of equipment.

I'm not out of my mind, and I would guess that you deem anything within your comfort range "affordable" and anything that is more than you want to spend "too expensive".  There are many different price points for equipment in any sport or hobby.  Go price a tent or tackle box and you'll see a broad range.

Myself?  I bought a used GBB about 5 years ago for $240, broke it within one month through normal use, and had it replaced by the manufacturer.  I still have the club, in addition to a Titleist with a softer shaft that I bought as a Demo 18 months ago for about $300.  My fairway woods are Steelhead Plusses that replaced generics about 2 years ago and were purchased from 2nd Swing.  My putter was a gift from my father-in-law when he told me I was welcome to try anything that had been condemned to his penalty box.  My sand wedge was bought from a guy I caddied for 18 years ago for the princely sum of $15.  The lofted wedge also came from my father-in-law's garage.  Irons?  Top Flite blades purchased new about 6 years ago close to cost ($450?).

Is it possible for me to pay more for equipment?  Without a doubt, yes.  Is it necessary?  Not for me, but others couldn't play with my odd collection.  (I didn't mention the two mismatched knock-offs that replace my 9-i and PW.)  A big reason for my purchase of the irons is that I was a frequent guest of a few people at their country clubs and didn't want to embarrass them by showing up with the crappy clubs I had used previously.

And lastly, Tim, when did I ever mention commending them for increasing costs?  All I said is that if any of the declarations about equipment advancements I've read on this board are true, it is time for someone to give credit to the people that make the clubs.  Like Jim did.

Jim Kennedy:

You are right.  Let me add that the problems facing all golf industry stem from the lack of growth.  You have companies trying to grow, plus some newcomers trying to gain a presence, in an industry showing little or no growth.  Unlike the economy, I'm not sure that the plague over golf businesses is cyclical.  It may be structural.  (If so, a "shakeout" with business failures should allow the survivors - the best capitalized companies like Ping, Callaway, and Nike - to show a spike up in sales on the back end, giving the impression that - for them - this funk may be cyclical.)

("Number-crunching bottom liners"?  You must love Ping then.  They seem to be unique to the industry in that they just wait out the slow times.  Contrast that to Spalding with their onerous debt load or Callaway with their publicly-traded shares.)

[Tim Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

Don't you think we should push equipment manufacturers to get prices down to something closer to real wage levels?

Why let them off the hook for the failure to do so?  We expect the Wintel crowd to lower the price of computer products to something far below the rate of inflation.  Why do we expect this of Bill Gates and not golf manufacturers?


John Conley:

I'm not in the camp that feels all this modern equipment is really an improvement.  If it is the engineers designing and making today's equipment you want to compliment, I'm not your guy.

Guys like Don White will always have my respect, but not the San Diego crowd.

Also, I think we have to come down hard on the equipment manufacturers for supporting "absolute length" as a value, when the essence of the game (when it comes to the length component) is "relative length".

Why should we let them off the hook for this?

[Scott_C]

Interesting topic.  

In my opinion, the biggest problem is the ball.  Seems to be the simplest article of equipment to "regulate" too.  If it isn't toned down, we'll soon be seeing the dawning of the 8,000 yard golf courses.  When pros have wedges into 450 yard par 4's (without a helping wind) something is amiss.  

The USGA (as far as I've seen) has not acted quickly enough to stop the madness.

[TEPaul]

Tim Weiman:

I'd like to hear your ideas on how the manufacturers could successfully "sell" the concept of "relative length". "Selling" the concept of "absolute length" is just so much easier to do for them, unfortunately. Somewhere in one of these threads or topics I wrote at length about my feeling about that--I'll find the post and email you where it is if you wouldn't mind reading it.

Jim Kennedy:

Your stats on the manufacturers new "bottomliners" of the last few years is very interesting. May I ask where you got those stats?

I'm no businessman but it seems to me the golf manufacturers of recent years have changed very dramatically in their approach to the business, their planning and cost structures.

Much of this I attest to the incorporation of many of the old-line golf equipment manufacturing companies into divisions of larger "general service" or "sport's service and general equipment" companies in recent years. To a large degree that has removed many of these companies approach and close connection to the game and definitely their closer connections to the regulatory bodies that they had in years past!

Also the nature of the business seems to be sort of a combination of the dramatic rise and fall cycles in popularity that has always been part of the retail clothing and apparel business. They also seem to be similar to something like the drug industry with extremely high R&D costs that they need to recover in their pricing structure.

The industry seems to be a combination now of "size to survive"--"economies of scale", I guess, on the one side and a mentality for the smaller fish of "hit a popularity spike" and really ride it for a time and then possibly sell out or amalgamate with someone larger.

The nature of this kind of mentality can be minimized in the future, I think, if an atmosphere can be created where the manufacturers and the regulatory bodies come together and collaborate far more than they have and are now in testing procedures and protocols!! In my opinion this could create a far more manageable atmosphere for the manufacturers with R&D in the context of the regulatory bodies R&D rules and regs.

I think it could help in planning and processing future equipment to conform more to both the LETTER, and more importantly, to the SPIRIT of the R&D rules and regs. This is off the top of my head but it seems to make sense.

There's a disturbing reality that has been part of the golf manufacturing industry in recent years. The manufacturers do their own equipment testing, independant of the USGA testing procedures and protocols. Frankly, they are far more advanced and sophisticated in the testing end of it than the regulatory bodies are and that atmosphere leads them to take advantage of the regulatory bodies which they very much have done recently.

Test procedures and protocols that are more collaborative between the USGA and the manufacturers would definitely help this problem.

In a vague way this might be something that Jeff Forston is talking about in his opposition to the idea of the "competetion ball".

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
I do like Ping. They make a long term commitment to their products and customers. Take the EYE & EYE2's for example. One of the longest runs and still available today. Even Zings and Zing2's can still be purchased. They aren't slaves to six month product cycles.
When they butted heads over the groove issue it was a technical challenge, not one of authority. Ping even replaced ALL the EYE2's of it's customers who golf under the rules of the R&A when the grandfathering of the club was ended.

TEPaul,
The inflation/income numbers are published by our federal government.
As for the manufacturers, you have answered the "why" in your post when you said "Much of this I attest to the incorporation of many of the old-line golf equipment manufacturing companies into divisions of larger general service or sport's service and general equipment companies in recent years."
The short, sometimes every 6 months, product cycles exist to drive customers into replacing their equipment on a yearly basis, not every 3 years, which was more the average in the past. This is not good for sellers because there are not enough buyers on this cycle nor enough new buyers to support it. Margins are lowered, in an effort to grab share, while prices rise (a set of irons cost the retailer about $40.00 more per unit this year) for consumers.

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

I see--thanks for the clarification on the stats.

Very astute of you to make the distinction that Ping's law suit involving the USGA and a separate suit against the PGA Tour was a technical suit of rules and regs interpretation and clarification and not one challenging rules making authority.

This is in stark contrast to the suit brought by Callaway against the RCGA and the implied legal "sabre rattling" of it to the USGA!

Callaway's suit was all about challenging authority, in my opinion, and was something I'll never really forgive Eli Callaway for. It marked a real low point in the aggressive and disrespectful stance of the manufacturers toward the rules making bodies and I do hope that it will remain as the low point in that regard!

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

See my post of 5/22/10:30am on the "Sheer brilliance of Steve Smyers" topic for what I would consider to be the real problems of the manufacturers trying to sell "realtive distance" vs the ease for them of selling "absolute distance".

[BCrosby]

John -

Let me get this straight.  We should commend golf equipment manufactuers for doing what any manufacturer of any product does anyway - i.e. improve its product over time?  And golf equipment companies deserve special kudos for this noble effort?

Golf equipment manufactuers have only done what any business does everyday.  They try to beat their competitors in the market place.  Failing that, they will cease to be profitable and they will be closed down.

The search for more distance, better accurracy, lighter bags, etc. is not a saintly undertaking.  It is called increasing shareholder returns.

And that's precisely the way they should run their businesses.

It is for other, outside entities like the USGA or the PGA to rein them in.  They will never do it voluntarily.

Bob  

[redanman]

Finally got to this one.  Only a broker could start this thread!  

Diversify my portfolio,HELL!!!!  What are you selling? Can I buy?! ?! ?! ?! !?  

[John_Conley]

Bob:

If you ever lambasted the American Big 3 (auto) 20 years ago for their inability to make a decent car, you should conversely commend the golf equipment manufacturers for their ability to improve golf clubs.  It isn't that easy for business to execute and I would never get in the habit of assuming product success.

Sticking to golf clubs - perimeter weighting on irons and woods has made it easier to stay on line with shots.  Lighter components have enabled larger head sizes with more forgiveness.  The tradeoff of distance vs. feel on the golf ball isn't as pronounced as it once was.

I started this thread for a purpose, and after a little initial hemming and hawing, I think that purpose is being served.  The game has no growth and the products available are getting a little bit better incrementally, which makes the effect of the last 20 years dramatic.  Tom Paul, Jim Kennedy, and Bruceski bring up some valid points.  Others, like Tim Weiman, agree that equipment is better, but still can't bring themselves to say it because of tangental issues that bother them.

I'm not "out of my mind" because I choose to separate a discussion about the merits of today's equipment from a discussion on the role of manufacturers in growing the game of golf.  Personally, I think the PGA TOUR and USGA should be committing more resources to a trade organization acting for the good of all golf stakeholdes.  Then the equipment manufacturers should be more willing to participate in that initiative because it is likely to show some results.

Mike Cirba:  Didn't Johnny Miller have that big reverse C finish?  Today they are actually teaching X-Factor as a way to build torque in the golf swing, a far cry from shoulders 90-degrees and hips 45-degrees.  Watch Tiger or Scott McCarron for current practitioners or any college tournament for an army of bangers.  Swings are a good bit different today, and all junior players are going hard at the ball.

[John_Conley]

Finally got to this one.  Only a broker could start this thread!  

Diversify my portfolio,HELL!!!!  What are you selling? Can I buy?! ?! ?! ?! !?  

So Bill, you are saying that equipment hasn't gotten better?

Either you agree that it has (the point of my thread, but some are so reluctant to attribute that to any work on the part of the club and ball makers), or you are saying that golf equipment has not gotten any better.

For a relevant time frame, let's use the last 7 years.  From 1995 to now.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()