USGA Notice to Manufacturers

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Designing and manufacturing a ball that performed as per your red line would be an engineering marvel.  If the ball manufacturers could devise a ball with the red line distance vs swing speed profile why haven't they done it in the last 20 years.

The rule is at 120 right now, so no… they'd have little incentive to boost the 100 MPH guys a few yards. And… the illustration is a bit exaggerated otherwise all of the lines would be so close together as to be somewhat indistinguishable. But a ball's distance is not linear to clubhead speed.

The ODS is carry plus bounce and roll - see the USGA's Test Protocol section 3.1 b:

Okay. They must standardize the surface. And that explains why the FlightScope Trajectory Optimizer stuff showing 315.5 made less sense. 

Longer than what? My point was that a ball that conforms to the MLR will likely perform not unlike the current ball in all ways except for distance and for distance it would be shorter for all.

And my point is that it doesn't have to for "everyone" because the point on the curve at which they enforce the limits is now (in the future anyway) farther out from the Tour average.


Additionally, the change in ball characteristics may result in a change in how PGA Tour players hit the ball. Many still hit down… while they could say "oh, I can get those 14 yards back… and then some, by hitting up a bit." So, players may adjust and actually hit the new ball farther.

Well, all the golf magazines, all the Touring pros, and all the club pros giving lessons, all get paid by the equipment manufacturers to promote "hitting it further".  Follow the money!

Not accurate.


JT cares about JT and JT alone. Maybe a little about TW and JS. But that's about it.a

[Tom_Doak]

Well, all the golf magazines, all the Touring pros, and all the club pros giving lessons, all get paid by the equipment manufacturers to promote "hitting it further".  Follow the money!

Not accurate.

Which of these were you describing as not accurate?


1.  The magazines exist in large part because of ads from the equipment manufacturers.  They have always been very quick to take the JT line about how any rollback of equipment would be bad for amateurs and bad for the game.


2.  The Tour pros [well, maybe not all of them, but most all of the ones who are ever quoted on the subject] are getting paid large sums by equipment manufacturers to play their product.  I don't know if they have to be told to follow the company line, but most of them surely do.


3.  Club professionals make money selling golf equipment.  I guess they would still make money if the equipment were different, but, they do promote whatever is the latest and greatest equipment tech, in an effort to sell more equipment.

[Pat Burke]

Tom,
While it seems (in my pretty distant knowledge) that you in particular design and build courses that “fit the land” and do not per se just chase a buck in doing so.


I know some guys do. Is it ok to lump all architects in that manner.


You didn’t write “club pros” you mentioned teaching pros  and to be honest, I took that as an insult. I teach and coach to help students improve. I am paid we’ll be my students, and have a few options for fitting equipment when needed with a few guys that are great at it.  And I dont make a nickel on it, because I let the  best guys I know take care of a client I am trying to help with their equipment and ball choices.


Lumping all into any group is a cheap shot in many times

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Which of these were you describing as not accurate?

Drats. I had bolded it the "all the club pros giving lessons" part, but when posted, GCA did the "tiny text" thing, so the formatting was stripped when I fixed it and I didn't notice.

Club professionals make money selling golf equipment.

Some do. There are plenty of club pros and plenty of people "giving lessons" who couldn't care much less about equipment, don't make money from it, etc.

Like me. I sell the occasional Edel wedge or putter, but otherwise… don't really care what you play. I don't sell golf balls, ever.

You didn’t write “club pros” you mentioned teaching pros and to be honest, I took that as an insult. I teach and coach to help students improve. I am paid well be my students, and have a few options for fitting equipment when needed with a few guys that are great at it.  And I dont make a nickel on it, because I let the  best guys I know take care of a client I am trying to help with their equipment and ball choices.Lumping all into any group is a cheap shot in many times

FWIW I'll give him a partial pass here as he did say "all the club pros giving lessons" which says both "club pros" but also "giving lessons" implying teaching pros.

[Pat Burke]

Fair enough Erik


So
Much bs vitriol in this topic around the golf world, I shouldn’t add to it.


Too much your side/my side in every discussion these days

[Thomas Dai]

Highlighting a find and post on Twitter by Andy Meldum that references Titleists 2009 patent for a lessor distance golf ball - as the post states -

“Here is Acushnet’s (Titleist) patent for a reduced flight ball designed to conform to proposed changes in regulation. It was lodged in 2009. The R&D work has already been done despite what the OEMs will try to tell us.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7815528B2/en
“

Lots of details which I imagine techie folks and stats fans may wish to read.

Atb

[Mark Pearce]

Highlighting a find and post on Twitter by Andy Meldum that references Titleists 2009 patent for a lessor distance golf ball - as the post states -

“Here is Acushnet’s (Titleist) patent for a reduced flight ball designed to conform to proposed changes in regulation. It was lodged in 2009. The R&D work has already been done despite what the OEMs will try to tell us.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7815528B2/en
“

Lots of details which I imagine techie folks and stats fans may wish to read.

Atb

Whilst that patent itself was applied for in 2009, it claimed priority from a number of earlier applications, the first of which was 2002.  There's also a second patent with common priority granted at the same time.  Both were allowed to expire (by non-payment of renewal fees) last year.   That suggests that Titleist didn't think the claimed technology was the way forward.  They will have anticipated some possible form of roll back (it's inconceivable that they weren't involved in some form of discussion with the USGA).  They must have other ideas.  Whatever the case, it's clearly not the case that the R&D had "already been done".  Some research had been done but that doesn't mean that they'll stand still.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Yes, they have patents in this area. They have like 1600+ patents on the golf ball, so of course they've got patents here. It's folly to say "see, they've already done the R&D, they don't need to do more!" That falls under "tell me you don't understand the business or science of golf balls without telling me you don't understand the business or science of golf balls."

Whatever the case, it's clearly not the case that the R&D had "already been done".  Some research had been done but that doesn't mean that they'll stand still.

Exactly.

[Mark Pearce]

They have like 1600+ patents on the golf ball, so of course they've got patents here.

I've seen this statistic in various places but just don't buy it.  A search of the espacenet patent database for Acushnet as applicant gives 2800 results.  That includes patents for clubs and bags as well as balls.  And also includes multiple hits for the same family (i.e. where an original application has also resulted in patents in, say, Europe and Japan, as well as just the USA (interestingly the two patents referenced above were not filed anywhere else but the USA).  The actual number of golf ball inventions protected by patent will be much, much lower than 1600.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I've seen this statistic in various places but just don't buy it.

They're probably just lying through their teeth.

The actual number of golf ball inventions protected by patent will be much, much lower than 1600.

I'm gonna go with what they've publicly stated over your hunch.

[Tim Martin]

I've seen this statistic in various places but just don't buy it.

They're probably just lying through their teeth.

The actual number of golf ball inventions protected by patent will be much, much lower than 1600.

I'm gonna go with what they've publicly stated over your hunch.

Usually you like to “stipulate” rather than just going with it. Not very convincing.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Usually you like to “stipulate” rather than just going with it. Not very convincing.

Did you click the link? Titleist literally saying "more than 1,600 patents" for the golf ball is "not very convincing"?

[Tim Martin]

Usually you like to “stipulate” rather than just going with it. Not very convincing.

Did you click the link? Titleist literally saying "more than 1,600 patents" for the golf ball is "not very convincing"?

You should have left the troll comment in there. I was making reference to other posts where you stated “you were willing to stipulate” to something like you were giving a court ordered deposition. The reality is it isn’t necessary as this is only a golf course architecture forum. Not surprised it went over your head as it’s clear you take yourself pretty seriously.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

You should have left the troll comment in there.

Okay, Troll Tim. Like a few others here, you'd rather discuss me than the topic.

I was making reference to other posts where you stated “you were willing to stipulate” to something like you were giving a court ordered deposition.

It has a definition. Yes, it's often used in legal proceedings, but it's used in debate and discussion too. Because it has a definition:

The reality is it isn’t necessary as this is only a golf course architecture forum. Not surprised it went over your head as it’s clear you take yourself pretty seriously.

No, not really. This stuff is just golf. Comments like that show how very poorly you know me.

[Adam Lawrence]

I've seen this statistic in various places but just don't buy it.

They're probably just lying through their teeth.

The actual number of golf ball inventions protected by patent will be much, much lower than 1600.

I'm gonna go with what they've publicly stated over your hunch.

That isn't a hunch. You may not be aware that Mark is a very successful IP lawyer.

By the way Erik, are you this much of an asshole in real life, or is it just your message board persona?

[Mark Pearce]

I've seen this statistic in various places but just don't buy it.

They're probably just lying through their teeth.

The actual number of golf ball inventions protected by patent will be much, much lower than 1600.

I'm gonna go with what they've publicly stated over your hunch.

It's not a hunch.  It's clearly true to anyone that actually knows anything about patents.  Which have been central to my career for 30 years.  But yes, you and your astonishing arrogance have at it.

[Mark Pearce]

By the way Erik, are you this much of an asshole in real life, or is it just your message board persona?

An interesting question.  I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to find out, though, in case, as seems likely, the answer actually is yes.

[Bryan Izatt]

Designing and manufacturing a ball that performed as per your red line would be an engineering marvel.  If the ball manufacturers could devise a ball with the red line distance vs swing speed profile why haven't they done it in the last 20 years.

The rule is at 120 right now, so no… they'd have little incentive to boost the 100 MPH guys a few yards. And… the illustration is a bit exaggerated otherwise all of the lines would be so close together as to be somewhat indistinguishable. But a ball's distance is not linear to clubhead speed.

I'm unclear what you are saying.  Is it that there will be little difference below 120 mph with a more severe flattening from 120 to 127 mph?

As to the distance-clubhead speed relationship, it is pretty darned linear with a slight tail off at the highest speed.
 Hopefully you're already aware of the following from a USGA study in 2011 which covers the range of speeds from 90 to 125.



The tail off, although small, is caused by diminishing COR with higher clubhead speeds as seen in the following from the same USGA study.  In any event designing and manufacturing a ball that tails off rapidly above 120 mph seems unlikely to me.  Maybe flattening the slope of the whole, almost linear, distance-swing speed curve might be possible, but if it was, I'd imagine they would have done it already as it advantages the recreational golfers who buy the most balls. 

The ODS is carry plus bounce and roll - see the USGA's Test Protocol section 3.1 b:

Okay. They must standardize the surface. And that explains why the FlightScope Trajectory Optimizer stuff showing 315.5 made less sense. 

Longer than what? My point was that a ball that conforms to the MLR will likely perform not unlike the current ball in all ways except for distance and for distance it would be shorter for all.

And my point is that it doesn't have to for "everyone" because the point on the curve at which they enforce the limits is now (in the future anyway) farther out from the Tour average.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. I was saying that the shorter ball will likely spin, roll, fly etc the same as the current ball does for all recreational and elite players according to their skills.  It'll just go shorter. What that has to do with being further out than the tour average is not clear to me.

Additionally, the change in ball characteristics may result in a change in how PGA Tour players hit the ball. Many still hit down… while they could say "oh, I can get those 14 yards back… and then some, by hitting up a bit." So, players may adjust and actually hit the new ball farther.

The new ALC are supposed to be the optimal launch conditions at 127 mph.  I'm a little skeptical and they say they are going to review that.  If they are the optimal launch conditions, then hitting up on the ball will change an individual's launch conditions but they will be less optimal and not yield more distance.  I'd imagine that the USGA, and you, are aware of the Trackman test results for positive angles of attack and optimal launch conditions.

If the USGA gets the optimal launch conditions wrong then sure the players will be able to game the distance standard.

The tour players data about hitting down on the ball is 4 or 5 years old.  I'd imagine it's probably more on the positive side now as the players continue the pursuit of the optimal launch conditions for their swing speed to achieve the greatest distance and accuracy.
 

[Ben Hollerbach]

Many, if not most, of the big manufactures list on their websites what patents they have assigned to which products:

• Titleist
• Bridgestone
• Callaway
• TaylorMade
• Ping

[Jim_Coleman]

    Brandel Chamblee tweeted a quite long summary of Mark Broadie's analysis purporting to show that the length PGA players hit the ball over the last few decades has not appreciably changed how courses are played. (I don't know how to attach the tweet to this post). The percentage of short irons hit into greens has remained quite constant; and the contribution of driving to winning has remained constant. Chamblee concludes that "distance gains can be mitigated by philosophy of design and setup."  He points to two fixes - more rough and less deforestation. 
   I think more rough would be an effective fix for tournament golf, but one not well tolerated by daily club play. Casual golfers will resist the problems created by high rough - slower play caused by looking for balls and impossible recovery shots. Leaving a few tress to present obstacles for poorly hit shots is another matter. Having to work balls around trees has been a staple in golf forever, and the recent deforestation trend has gone too far. Yes, remove enough trees to promote grass growth, but not so many as to remove the challenge of recovering from a poorly hit shot.

[Mark Pearce]

Many, if not most, of the big manufactures list on their websites what patents they have assigned to which products:

• Titleist
• Bridgestone
• Callaway
• TaylorMade
• Ping

Thanks, Ben.


Looking at the Titleist page, I see 60 different patents for the 2019 ProV1X, which is the most for any of those balls.  A bunch of those patents (most, in fact) are duplicated across other balls (as would be expected).  Taking that duplication into account we aren't seeing more than a few dozen ball patents here.  Now, obviously, they aren't listing patents that they're not using (like, for instance, the reduced ball flight patent mentioned earlier).  Or expired patents (like the two patents for reduced ball flight, coming from the application listed). 


To be honest, that's still a lot of patents for something like a golf ball.  But 1600 inventions it isn't.  Not by a very large distance.


They also don't, on that link, list foreign equivalents to those patents (which are all US patents).  So what we're seeing are, literally, dozens of patented inventions.  They may get to 1600 patents by counting expired patents and foreign equivalents.  Possibly.


Still, looks like my "hunch" regarding the number of inventions was spot on, by a factor of 10, or more.

[Niall C]

   Having to work balls around trees has been a staple in golf forever

Jim


I'm not sure Old Tom Morris would agree with you if he was still alive. But setting aside my smartarse comment, on how many courses on the PGA Tour for instance, does a golfer have to flight a ball round a tree if they are say 5 to 10 yards off the fairway ? I've no idea as I don't watch much professional golf but would be interested to know.


Niall

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

Thanks for your insights on all this.

In my line of work, tech, patents are a strange animal indeed. In theory while its supposed to allow ideas and innovation to make into the public with financial protections, as a practical matter it was odd to say the least.

I've sat in no fewer than 3 meetings with lawyers instructing us to never, ever, ever look up/read/analyze any other company's patents and especially not those of a direct competitor.  And god forbid if we did, never share ideas in company emails or even on company premises. Also had a co-worker author and write the most beautiful technical patent I've ever seen, only to be told it was far too specific and detailed and do the whole thing over from scratch so it was incredibly vague.

As far as I could tell, they were only encouraged so Executives could whip them out in braggartly style and exclaim "behold my war-chest" and/or use them as an excuse to sue and counter-sure competitors willy nilly for any and all reasons, whether it was related to the patent or not.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Niall: I don’t know either, but probably a lot less than was the case 20 years ago. A lot of critics of the proposed bifurcated ball rule are pointing to a few more trees as a solution. There’s no denying that tree removal has been a “thing” lately. It’s certainly been glorified on this cite.
   As for Old Tom - wind, gorse, heather and penal bunkers work too.

[Mark Pearce]

As far as I could tell, they were only encouraged so Executives could whip them out in braggartly style and exclaim "behold my war-chest" and/or use them as an excuse to sue and counter-sure competitors willy nilly for any and all reasons, whether it was related to the patent or not.

There are certainly areas where this is the case.  In SEP/FRAND negotiations between the big mobile telephony providers at least, they do almost literally compare the weight of their bags of patents!


Your first two paragraphs are interesting and are, I suspect, an inevitable result of the triple damages rule in US patent law, which allow for the award of tripled damages where the infringer was aware of the infringement (I'm not a US attorney, so triple damages are outside my detailed knowledge).  I think it's easier for businesses to monitor their competitors' patent activity in other jurisdictions and I have clients that do just that.  Indeed, in a previous life as a physicist/engineer, I was involved in monitoring competitor patents.