storm319

The ruling bodies own data for the past two decades counters the course lengthening narrative that is primarily driving this (no point in bringing up anything from the prior century given that it has been clear that the ruling bodies do not intend to rollback distance levels prior to their 2002 joint statement line in the sand).
Also, let’s not give too much credit to the ruling bodies. While they may have considered feedback on the “how”, it is clear that they did not consider any feedback on the “if” which means that the decision process was not as open as they led us to believe.
Again, the PGAs and R&As have not been advocating for ANY change and being strongly against bifurcation does not mean they support a global rollback. Ultimately the ruling bodies are the ones making this change and they need to own it. 

Cast thermoset urethane: chemical components are added to the mold separately where a chemical reaction crosslinks at a molecular level. Once cast the material cannot be recycled (as a result there tends to be more scrap which adds to the cost). The casting process takes longer to deliver a completed cover also adding cost, but the result tends to be a more durable, softer, thinner cover. Only 5 facilities on the planet that support this production process in a meaningful capacity (two owned by Acushnet, two owned by Taylormade, and Foremost who is independent though Taylormade also has a stake in that factory). As of today brands are pretty much limited to Titleist, Taylormade, Vice, Maxfli, and Wilson. 
Injection molded thermoplastic urethane (TPU): chemical components premixed and injection molded similar to other thermoplastics (ionomer/surlyn balls are produced the same way). Process is faster, cheaper, and material can be melted back down and reused once formed. Finished covers tend to be harder, thicker, and less durable than thermoset urethane, but still thinner and softer than ionomers. Big brands that use this production method are Bridgestone, Callaway, Srixon and then pretty much every other white label factory other than Foremost that produce balls for the majority of the smaller DTC brands (Acushnet also uses this method for the Titleist Tour Speed). 
 
TLDR: All other variables equal, thermoset urethane covers should be softer/thinner (tends to produce more spin) and tend to be more durable. With that said, other variables can be adjusted to account for the cover difference, granted it is difficult to make up for feel for those that a sensitive to cover hardness.

You are misunderstanding bifurcation in this context. Tour issued equipment is still subject to the same regulations as retail equipment. Bifurcation would mean different regulations for different levels of play which would be a mess to navigate for future talent trying to ascend to the pro level (and potentially a financial roadblock if the OEMs don’t make it readily available at retail). 
Interactive team sports like baseball, basketball, football, or soccer where the ball is provided is not an apples to apples comparison because those sports have direct interaction between players where golf as an individual sport does not (it is just the player vs the course). As for bat materials in MLB, that is more about traditional aesthetics (mainly the sound) than performance as it is possible to make composite bats that perform similarly to wood from a COR perspective. 

You are misunderstanding bifurcation in this context. Tour issued equipment is still subject to the same regulations as retail equipment. Bifurcation would mean different regulations for different levels of play which would be a mess to navigate for future talent trying to ascend to the pro level (and potentially a financial roadblock if the OEMs don’t make it readily available at retail). 
Interactive team sports like baseball, basketball, football, or soccer where the ball is provided is not an apples to apples comparison because those sports have direct interaction between players where golf as an individual sport does not (it is just the player vs the course). As for bat materials in MLB, that is more about traditional aesthetics (mainly the sound) than performance as it is possible to make composite bats that perform similarly to wood from a COR perspective. 

You are misunderstanding bifurcation in this context. Tour issued equipment is still subject to the same regulations as retail equipment. Bifurcation would mean different regulations for different levels of play which would be a mess to navigate for future talent trying to ascend to the pro level (and potentially a financial roadblock if the OEMs don’t make it readily available at retail). 
Interactive team sports like baseball, basketball, football, or soccer where the ball is provided is not an apples to apples comparison because those sports have direct interaction between players where golf as an individual sport does not (it is just the player vs the course). As for bat materials in MLB, that is more about traditional aesthetics (mainly the sound) than performance as it is possible to make composite bats that perform similarly to wood from a COR perspective. 

The ruling bodies own data for the past two decades counters the course lengthening narrative that is primarily driving this (no point in bringing up anything from the prior century given that it has been clear that the ruling bodies do not intend to rollback distance levels prior to their 2002 joint statement line in the sand).
Also, let’s not give too much credit to the ruling bodies. While they may have considered feedback on the “how”, it is clear that they did not consider any feedback on the “if” which means that the decision process was not as open as they led us to believe.
Again, the PGAs and R&As have not been advocating for ANY change and being strongly against bifurcation does not mean they support a global rollback. Ultimately the ruling bodies are the ones making this change and they need to own it. 

The ruling bodies own data for the past two decades counters the course lengthening narrative that is primarily driving this (no point in bringing up anything from the prior century given that it has been clear that the ruling bodies do not intend to rollback distance levels prior to their 2002 joint statement line in the sand).
Also, let’s not give too much credit to the ruling bodies. While they may have considered feedback on the “how”, it is clear that they did not consider any feedback on the “if” which means that the decision process was not as open as they led us to believe.
Again, the PGAs and R&As have not been advocating for ANY change and being strongly against bifurcation does not mean they support a global rollback. Ultimately the ruling bodies are the ones making this change and they need to own it. 

Think about the likely millions of clubs that would no longer be conforming. Not exactly an environmentally or financially responsible decision. 
The USGA handled the COR limit correctly, cap it when they identified it as a problem and prior to mass adoption. The severely mishandled the size limit but it is way too late to rectify (they should have set the limit just above the Ping TISI in 1998 when they initially set the COR limit). 

If the end result is negligible and it doesn’t solve the USGAs/R&As perceived problem at the elite level, then what is the point in doing it at all?!

The ruling bodies own data for the past two decades counters the course lengthening narrative that is primarily driving this (no point in bringing up anything from the prior century given that it has been clear that the ruling bodies do not intend to rollback distance levels prior to their 2002 joint statement line in the sand).
Also, let’s not give too much credit to the ruling bodies. While they may have considered feedback on the “how”, it is clear that they did not consider any feedback on the “if” which means that the decision process was not as open as they led us to believe.
Again, the PGAs and R&As have not been advocating for ANY change and being strongly against bifurcation does not mean they support a global rollback. Ultimately the ruling bodies are the ones making this change and they need to own it. 

The ruling bodies own data for the past two decades counters the course lengthening narrative that is primarily driving this (no point in bringing up anything from the prior century given that it has been clear that the ruling bodies do not intend to rollback distance levels prior to their 2002 joint statement line in the sand).
Also, let’s not give too much credit to the ruling bodies. While they may have considered feedback on the “how”, it is clear that they did not consider any feedback on the “if” which means that the decision process was not as open as they led us to believe.
Again, the PGAs and R&As have not been advocating for ANY change and being strongly against bifurcation does not mean they support a global rollback. Ultimately the ruling bodies are the ones making this change and they need to own it. 

The stakeholders you advocate blame to are NOT changing the rules (nor advocating for this change). The blame still should still be targeted at the ruling bodies. 

If the end result is negligible and it doesn’t solve the USGAs/R&As perceived problem at the elite level, then what is the point in doing it at all?!

If the end result is negligible and it doesn’t solve the USGAs/R&As perceived problem at the elite level, then what is the point in doing it at all?!

Think about the likely millions of clubs that would no longer be conforming. Not exactly an environmentally or financially responsible decision. 
The USGA handled the COR limit correctly, cap it when they identified it as a problem and prior to mass adoption. The severely mishandled the size limit but it is way too late to rectify (they should have set the limit just above the Ping TISI in 1998 when they initially set the COR limit). 

The stakeholders you advocate blame to are NOT changing the rules (nor advocating for this change). The blame still should still be targeted at the ruling bodies. 

If the end result is negligible and it doesn’t solve the USGAs/R&As perceived problem at the elite level, then what is the point in doing it at all?!

If the end result is negligible and it doesn’t solve the USGAs/R&As perceived problem at the elite level, then what is the point in doing it at all?!

Think about the likely millions of clubs that would no longer be conforming. Not exactly an environmentally or financially responsible decision. 
The USGA handled the COR limit correctly, cap it when they identified it as a problem and prior to mass adoption. The severely mishandled the size limit but it is way too late to rectify (they should have set the limit just above the Ping TISI in 1998 when they initially set the COR limit). 

The stakeholders you advocate blame to are NOT changing the rules (nor advocating for this change). The blame still should still be targeted at the ruling bodies. 

If the end result is negligible and it doesn’t solve the USGAs/R&As perceived problem at the elite level, then what is the point in doing it at all?!

If the end result is negligible and it doesn’t solve the USGAs/R&As perceived problem at the elite level, then what is the point in doing it at all?!

If the end result is negligible and it doesn’t solve the USGAs/R&As perceived problem at the elite level, then what is the point in doing it at all?!

Cast thermoset urethane: chemical components are added to the mold separately where a chemical reaction crosslinks at a molecular level. Once cast the material cannot be recycled (as a result there tends to be more scrap which adds to the cost). The casting process takes longer to deliver a completed cover also adding cost, but the result tends to be a more durable, softer, thinner cover. Only 5 facilities on the planet that support this production process in a meaningful capacity (two owned by Acushnet, two owned by Taylormade, and Foremost who is independent though Taylormade also has a stake in that factory). As of today brands are pretty much limited to Titleist, Taylormade, Vice, Maxfli, and Wilson. 
Injection molded thermoplastic urethane (TPU): chemical components premixed and injection molded similar to other thermoplastics (ionomer/surlyn balls are produced the same way). Process is faster, cheaper, and material can be melted back down and reused once formed. Finished covers tend to be harder, thicker, and less durable than thermoset urethane, but still thinner and softer than ionomers. Big brands that use this production method are Bridgestone, Callaway, Srixon and then pretty much every other white label factory other than Foremost that produce balls for the majority of the smaller DTC brands (Acushnet also uses this method for the Titleist Tour Speed). 
 
TLDR: All other variables equal, thermoset urethane covers should be softer/thinner (tends to produce more spin) and tend to be more durable. With that said, other variables can be adjusted to account for the cover difference, granted it is difficult to make up for feel for those that a sensitive to cover hardness.

And that event represents ~70% of their annual revenue.  Want to get their attention, boycott the US Open.