Jump to content
Smellis745

USGA and R&A say distance needs to be reigned back in

USGA/R&A Distance Report  

100 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of these has made the biggest contribution to distance gains on Tour in the last 30 years?

    • Ball technology
      32
    • Driver tech/fitting
      20
    • Fitness
      33
    • Launch monitor optimization
      4
    • Course conditions
      11
  2. 2. Is too much distance a problem on the Tour?

    • Yes
      44
    • No
      56
  3. 3. Is too much distance a problem for amateurs?

    • Yes
      6
    • No
      94
  4. 4. Which best represents your solution to the distance issue?

    • There's no issue. Keep things the way they are.
      19
    • Bifurcate: roll back the balls/clubs for the Tour, but leave the amateur equipment alone
      12
    • Change course conditions on Tour: taller grass, narrower fairways, etc.
      65
    • Roll back balls/clubs for everyone
      4
  5. 5. If the USGA rolls back the ball for everyone, would you switch to the new ball?

    • Yes
      38
    • No
      62


Recommended Posts

Our Sponsors

5 hours ago, FrogginBullfish said:

It was great to see a major OEM take a stand against this report. Admittedly though, I am more than a tad surprised that it was Titleist that took the stand first. Hopefully more will follow soon.



Sent from my Pixel 2 using MyGolfSpy mobile app
 

Not at all surprising given that the most likely rollback target would be the ball so as the market share leader they have the most to lose.

Bridgestone who spoke out in favor a couple of years ago is number 4 in market share and apparently already had a head start given that they produced new limited flight balls for a USGA pilot a few years ago. They actually have a financial incentive for a market reset to occur.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, storm319 said:

Not at all surprising given that the most likely rollback target would be the ball so as the market share leader they have the most to lose.

Bridgestone who spoke out in favor a couple of years ago is number 4 in market share and apparently already had a head start given that they produced new limited flight balls for a USGA pilot a few years ago. They actually have a financial incentive for a market reset to occur.

It’s not just titleist that has a lot to lose. Callaway is investing $50 million to renovate their ball plant with new equipment, new process, plus the money and effort into the design of the new csx. They aren’t going to want to have to spend time and money to have to make a new ball that’s compliant for the less than 1% of golfers in the world
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

It’s not just titleist that has a lot to lose. Callaway is investing $50 million to renovate their ball plant with new equipment, new process, plus the money and effort into the design of the new csx. They aren’t going to want to have to spend time and money to have to make a new ball that’s compliant for the less than 1% of golfers in the world

I do wonder if the costs to develop and manufacture a "go short" ball would keep some of the smaller ball companies out of the "elite ball" marketplace.  We know that most elite players don't actually pay for golf balls, so I'd anticipate that most of the costs associated with the "short" ball would end up being spread out over all of the people who DO pay for their own balls, meaning you and me.  Titleist could do that and we'd never notice much difference, bot others might not want to risk losing market share due to price increases. I'll still be really surprised if the various stakeholders could agree on any type of equipment bifurcation, whether its voluntary (via Local Rule) or mandatory somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

I do wonder if the costs to develop and manufacture a "go short" ball would keep some of the smaller ball companies out of the "elite ball" marketplace.  We know that most elite players don't actually pay for golf balls, so I'd anticipate that most of the costs associated with the "short" ball would end up being spread out over all of the people who DO pay for their own balls, meaning you and me.  Titleist could do that and we'd never notice much difference, bot others might not want to risk losing market share due to price increases. I'll still be really surprised if the various stakeholders could agree on any type of equipment bifurcation, whether its voluntary (via Local Rule) or mandatory somehow.

The cost would definitely be spread down to the consumer from the big brands that have their own facilities. It would be interesting to see how the dtc brands or brands that only own part of the process like a TM would handle it. 
 

I saw somewhere the price of the new csx will be $47.99 now putting it at the same as the prov/avx lines, a few dollars above TM and Bridgestone. One of the things Ive seen from across Facebook and forums was they liked the cost of the z star line, calllaway or Bridgestone balls because they were cheaper than titleist (although for me $3-5 isn’t a deal breaker).

2020 is going to be an interesting year to watch equipment and ball sales 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

I do wonder if the costs to develop and manufacture a "go short" ball would keep some of the smaller ball companies out of the "elite ball" marketplace.  We know that most elite players don't actually pay for golf balls, so I'd anticipate that most of the costs associated with the "short" ball would end up being spread out over all of the people who DO pay for their own balls, meaning you and me.  Titleist could do that and we'd never notice much difference, bot others might not want to risk losing market share due to price increases. I'll still be really surprised if the various stakeholders could agree on any type of equipment bifurcation, whether its voluntary (via Local Rule) or mandatory somehow.

I agree it would push them out of this market, but honestly I don't see it affecting their bottom line much as the elite don't generally play their balls anyway. And yes if they do bifurcate the John Q Public will pay for all the additional R & D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I do wonder if the costs to develop and manufacture a "go short" ball would keep some of the smaller ball companies out of the "elite ball" marketplace.  We know that most elite players don't actually pay for golf balls, so I'd anticipate that most of the costs associated with the "short" ball would end up being spread out over all of the people who DO pay for their own balls, meaning you and me.  Titleist could do that and we'd never notice much difference, bot others might not want to risk losing market share due to price increases. I'll still be really surprised if the various stakeholders could agree on any type of equipment bifurcation, whether its voluntary (via Local Rule) or mandatory somehow.

Keep in mind that the most of the smaller ball marketing companies outsource R&D and production to 3 asian factories. I am sure those factories will be able to adapt on a similar time frame as the big 5 (considering that these factories also produce some for 2 of the big 5). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HardcoreLooper said:

Dean dropping knowledge bombs...

 

100% correct!!  Will they listen... no

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...