Where's your verification 
need more than the word of a rep :thup:
I like the Bridgestone ball. RXS330 is as good as I've played
need more than the word of a rep :thup:I like the Bridgestone ball. RXS330 is as good as I've played
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Yes sorry apologies for the confusion :thup:
3565
Journeyman Pro
Someone I know used to work for Cleveland, said Srixon bought Cleveland, and they are all about Srixon balls and gloves. I've also heard there's only 3 manufacturers of balls, Srixon, Bridgestone and Callaway. True or not I'm not sure, but he did say that Nike balls are Bridgestone, and Titleist pay a royalty of $1 a ball to Bridgestone.
BTatHome
Tour Winner
I think the problem is facts being quoted as true now, when they were true many many years ago, but not anymore.
Tiger used to use Bridgestone balls that were branded as Nike (before Nike started designing their own balls)
Titleist lost a court battle to Bridgestone when they infringed on patents and where made to pay them based on ball sales. Titleist quickly changed their ball and hence stopped paying the patent royalties.
Lots of companies bought lots of other companies for R&D and patents! eg taylormade bought up lots of companies to get into the business too. Callaway did the same many years ago.
Tiger used to use Bridgestone balls that were branded as Nike (before Nike started designing their own balls)
Titleist lost a court battle to Bridgestone when they infringed on patents and where made to pay them based on ball sales. Titleist quickly changed their ball and hence stopped paying the patent royalties.
Lots of companies bought lots of other companies for R&D and patents! eg taylormade bought up lots of companies to get into the business too. Callaway did the same many years ago.
chrisd
Major Champion
I agree to mist of the comments, Bridgestone apparently made most of the balls for most brand names. My understanding is that Titleist have now built their own ball manufacturing plant and have stopped using Bridgestone
Crow
Crow Person
Who cares anyway, just use the ball you like. 
Who cares anyway, just use the ball you like.
I agree. If you gave me a bucket of unmarked premium brand balls I would never be able to tell one from another with perhaps the exception of the Callaway which I always find clicky off wedges and putters. Other than that, I'd have no clue.
nemicu
Head Pro
Good point. Personally, I'd like a premium ball completely blank and devoid of any branding whatsoever. Too much to ask?
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Why would you like a blank ball ?
Not asking for a blank ball. I'm saying if you gave me a test sample, therefore without any manufacturers markings at all, I would struggle to identify which make and model it was from hitting it alone. It goes to prove I guess to a degree at least, whether we admit it or not, we are slaves to brand loyalty and subliminal advertising. If you couldn't choose a ball on anything other than hitting it, I wonder what make you'd end up with. Sounds like an interesting GM opportunity Mike (and I want first dibs as suggester)
3565
Journeyman Pro
I want to a patent and brand a ball called 'Provisional Ball'
everytime I hit one it goes straight as an arraaaa..........
nemicu
Head Pro
Why wouldn't I either? There's nothing in the rules to say a ball must have branding or any markings other than your ability to identify your ball in play. As pointed out, some branding is distracting and personally I like to view a ball with no script or branding - but that's just me.
As with any other ball I put into use, I mark it with my own series of coloured dots which makes identification assured.
BTatHome
Tour Winner
How would you know whether the blank ball was a legal ball for competition use? :smirk:
nemicu
Head Pro
Does a ball need branding to make it conforming?
SammmeBee
Journeyman Pro
Yes
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
So you want a blank ball because you like to view a ball with no branding - but then put a series of dots over it ?
I going to take a wild guess that a manufacturer won't make a blank ball
nemicu
Head Pro
yes - but that would be marking of my choice - not someone else's. You're probably correct that nobody would market a blank ball, but in response to Sammmbee, I'd like to see evidence that a ball of any kind has to be branded to be deemed legal for competion. As long as it is of the same type as submitted for original approval and it meets the criteria set out by the rules, a ball can be of any design and colour. That includes plain.
Evesdad
Tour Winner
Think I'd like a ball with no markings. When putting I always place the ball with the black bit visible.
BTatHome
Tour Winner
I didn't say it needs branding to be conforming.
If all balls were blank then you wouldn't be able to tell which balls were legal and which ones were illegal as there would be no way to differentiate them from one another. So I could easily pick up a few nonconforming blank balls and play without anybody knowing.
Foxholer
Blackballed
This is codswallop!
The ProV was 'invented' by a TopFlite employee, which is why Callaway sued Titleist a little while after it purchased TopFlite!
Titleist also breached manufacturing patents held by Bridgestone. I believe these were techniques to avoid the seam when the two pieces of the cover were joined.
I seriously doubt that a huge Japanese conglomerate (Sumitomo Rubber Industries) would get another large Japanese company - and a competitor - Bridgestone - to manufacture a major part of one of their divisions key products! Both have been manufacturing their own brands - and some others - for decades! So I would call B/S - until some hard facts were seen - on the Srixon balls being made by Bridgestone. And BiM has posted the story that I know. Golf ball manufacture did tend to be an offshoot of the Rubber industry! A comment by a Sales Rep does not satisfy me definition of 'facts'!
However, I have no qualms believing that Nike balls were initially made by Bridgestone and would not be surprised/see no reason why they are not still made for them - even though there are dedicated Nike ball factories. The Nike/.Bridgestone arrangement story has been around for a long time - early TW Nike days. It would have grated if TW had continue to use any of his previous sponsor's 'normal' products - as I'm sure the Cameron putter must have grated! Nike are primarily a marketing company and the manufacturing process diverts significant resources from that area - where they are one of the best in the world! And when you consider that the entire Golf portfolio is some 3% of there turnover, it's really just a way to enable the top executives to be 'completely Nike' in whatever sporting activity the may be involved in!
Last edited:
