Roll Back Discussion

[sweaty sock]

according to Mike Whan, he would have liked to get buy in before the announcement, but that wasn't possible. They made the announcement, and now have to get buy in from various organisations.

Wow.

 

[Imurg]

People will still buy it. Like i said earlier, id buy a mini driver just for kicks. And the ball makers already do a number of balls for tour only. Left dot pro v1, right star pro v1. Theres even a rumour some pros are using pro v1's for a ten year old 2013 recipe that was changed for cost saving. So the ball makers will be fine....

Will enough punters be willing to buy it to make it financially viable to put them out for sale..?
Extra advertising costs, packaging etc etc..don't forget they'll be giving hundreds of thousands away to Pros every week..3 dozen each per tournament or something like that.
That's a lot of cost to recoup on a ball that goes shorter....
There's no real incentive for the ball manufacturers to make these balls...and what if no manufacturer does make them?
What are they going to do then?
Won't happen but it would be quite funny....
Bottom line is that the manufacturers will recoup their extra costs from us....we'll end up paying for this..

 

[D-S]

They are statistically not any more accurate with 3 woods than they are with driver.

This is probably because they only use three wood when aiming for very narrow fairways or a precise landing zone - if they used them when they would normally blast away with driver into wide fairways then the accuracy in terms of fairways hit would improve dramatically.

 

[sweaty sock]

Will enough punters be willing to buy it to make it financially viable to put them out for sale..?
Extra advertising costs, packaging etc etc..don't forget they'll be giving hundreds of thousands away to Pros every week..3 dozen each per tournament or something like that.
That's a lot of cost to recoup on a ball that goes shorter....
There's no real incentive for the ball manufacturers to make these balls...and what if no manufacturer does make them?
What are they going to do then?
Won't happen but it would be quite funny....
Bottom line is that the manufacturers will recoup their extra costs from us....we'll end up paying for this..

100% agree. All costs amortised across the range. The short ball will never stand on its own unless its rolled out to everyone. If it is rolled out to everyone and its won the last 6, 10 or 20 majors then itll be raining cash for whichever manufacture has bit the bullet. Tough call coming up for ball manufacturers....

 

[Wabinez]

Will enough punters be willing to buy it to make it financially viable to put them out for sale..?
Extra advertising costs, packaging etc etc..don't forget they'll be giving hundreds of thousands away to Pros every week..3 dozen each per tournament or something like that.
That's a lot of cost to recoup on a ball that goes shorter....
There's no real incentive for the ball manufacturers to make these balls...and what if no manufacturer does make them?
What are they going to do then?
Won't happen but it would be quite funny....
Bottom line is that the manufacturers will recoup their extra costs from us....we'll end up paying for this..

Ultimately, I think the balls they make will just be the balls that are pumped to the amateur market too. I doubt they will differentiate. Amateurs will not notice a drop off and will continue on their merry way

 

[Slab]

Will enough punters be willing to buy it to make it financially viable to put them out for sale..?
Extra advertising costs, packaging etc etc..don't forget they'll be giving hundreds of thousands away to Pros every week..3 dozen each per tournament or something like that.
That's a lot of cost to recoup on a ball that goes shorter....
There's no real incentive for the ball manufacturers to make these balls...and what if no manufacturer does make them?
What are they going to do then?
Won't happen but it would be quite funny....
Bottom line is that the manufacturers will recoup their extra costs from us....we'll end up paying for this..

Erm I'm sure I'm missing something but doesn't every ball manufacture already make one or more types of ball that go 'shorter' than their premium ball

 

[Swango1980]

Erm I'm sure I'm missing something but doesn't every ball manufacture already make one or more types of ball that go 'shorter' than their premium ball

I'm pretty sure nearly every ball, even the cheaper ones from a manufacturer, are advertised as being "longer than ever". Even though some balls will go less distance, it is certainly not part of the marketing campaign. Just randomly went to have a look at Callaway website, see what they say:

Chrome Soft (and Truvus) : Longer through the bag
Chrome Soft x (and x LS): Ball is faster off the driver
Supersoft: it's long, straight distance
ERC soft: paired with an all-new HyperElastic SoftFast core that increases ball speed
Warbird: promotes high launch and long carry
Reva: designed for longer, more accurate shots

So, from an advertising perspective, it seems like every ball they have is designed for distance. You'll never hear them say Ball A is our shorter ball, but it is cheaper. Ball B is longer, but you need to put your hand in your pocket. So. if it is known for a fact that a ball is purposely designed to go shorter, the manufacturers are really going to struggle using the typical "longest ball ever, designed for distance, etc". Everyone would know they are actually designed for less distance. That is the point.

 

[bobmac]

Is it tomorrow yet?

I hope so there's free beer tomorrow

 

[Swango1980]

People will still buy it. Like i said earlier, id buy a mini driver just for kicks. And the ball makers already do a number of balls for tour only. Left dot pro v1, right star pro v1. Theres even a rumour some pros are using pro v1's for a ten year old 2013 recipe that was changed for cost saving. So the ball makers will be fine....

Yes, but it would be very niche. I'm not sure the biggest golf brands are that interested in selling niche products? They want to sell their top products to as many people as possible, and performance in Majors can be a huge marketing opportunity (remembering back to Tiger's chip on the 16th at the Masters, and the Nike logo stopping to say hello to the camera, before diving into the hole)

You are one of the few who would buy a mini driver for kicks (although, I'm guessing the fact you haven't done so already indicates that it isn't even a high priority for you). Many golfers simply won't go there. And, many club golfers are probably not all that interested in a ball that is designed to go less distance. Would it not just be cheaper to use a range ball or lake balls?

 

[Bdill93]

Yes, but it would be very niche. I'm not sure the biggest golf brands are that interested in selling niche products? They want to sell their top products to as many people as possible, and performance in Majors can be a huge marketing opportunity (remembering back to Tiger's chip on the 16th at the Masters, and the Nike logo stopping to say hello to the camera, before diving into the hole)

You are one of the few who would buy a mini driver for kicks (although, I'm guessing the fact you haven't done so already indicates that it isn't even a high priority for you). Many golfers simply won't go there. And, many club golfers are probably not all that interested in a ball that is designed to go less distance. Would it not just be cheaper to use a range ball or lake balls?[/QUOTE]

Or a Slazzy

 

[sweaty sock]

Yes, but it would be very niche. I'm not sure the biggest golf brands are that interested in selling niche products? They want to sell their top products to as many people as possible, and performance in Majors can be a huge marketing opportunity (remembering back to Tiger's chip on the 16th at the Masters, and the Nike logo stopping to say hello to the camera, before diving into the hole)

You are one of the few who would buy a mini driver for kicks (although, I'm guessing the fact you haven't done so already indicates that it isn't even a high priority for you). Many golfers simply won't go there. And, many club golfers are probably not all that interested in a ball that is designed to go less distance. Would it not just be cheaper to use a range ball or lake balls?

The one specially made for him you couldnt buy in the shops

 

[BiMGuy]

Yes, but it would be very niche. I'm not sure the biggest golf brands are that interested in selling niche products? They want to sell their top products to as many people as possible, and performance in Majors can be a huge marketing opportunity (remembering back to Tiger's chip on the 16th at the Masters, and the Nike logo stopping to say hello to the camera, before diving into the hole)

You are one of the few who would buy a mini driver for kicks (although, I'm guessing the fact you haven't done so already indicates that it isn't even a high priority for you). Many golfers simply won't go there. And, many club golfers are probably not all that interested in a ball that is designed to go less distance. Would it not just be cheaper to use a range ball or lake balls?

As we see on here. Many, if not most golfers don’t care what ball they use. They will play whatever they find or is cheap.

Others by the ProV1 etch because they are the best/premium balls and will carry on doing so if the manufacturers market the new ball as their premium tour inspired ball.

Judging by the number of people who play the Kirkland, there are plenty of people happy to by a ball that doesn’t go as far as others!

 

[Jimaroid]

“We don’t want extra market segmentation”

Said no marketing department ever.

 

[Swango1980]

As we see on here. Many, if not most golfers don’t care what ball they use. They will play whatever they find or is cheap.

Others by the ProV1 etch because they are the best/premium balls and will carry on doing so if the manufacturers market the new ball as their premium tour inspired ball.

Judging by the number of people who play the Kirkland, there are plenty of people happy to by a ball that doesn’t go as far as others!

Yes, but I think most ball manufacturers are more interested in what ball they can flog to the public, for as much money as they can, by promising them 2 things: More distance and More control. I don't think they are too bothered by the golfers that are happy to use any ball they pick up in the bushes, or drag out of a lake with their extendable ball scooper.

 

[Swango1980]

The one specially made for him you couldnt buy in the shops

indeed, probably like most of their golf clubs. However, technically all within the same specifications we can all play under.

 

[Slab]

I'm pretty sure nearly every ball, even the cheaper ones from a manufacturer, are advertised as being "longer than ever". Even though some balls will go less distance, it is certainly not part of the marketing campaign. Just randomly went to have a look at Callaway website, see what they say:

Chrome Soft (and Truvus) : Longer through the bag
Chrome Soft x (and x LS): Ball is faster off the driver
Supersoft: it's long, straight distance
ERC soft: paired with an all-new HyperElastic SoftFast core that increases ball speed
Warbird: promotes high launch and long carry
Reva: designed for longer, more accurate shots

So, from an advertising perspective, it seems like every ball they have is designed for distance. You'll never hear them say Ball A is our shorter ball, but it is cheaper. Ball B is longer, but you need to put your hand in your pocket. So. if it is known for a fact that a ball is purposely designed to go shorter, the manufacturers are really going to struggle using the typical "longest ball ever, designed for distance, etc". Everyone would know they are actually designed for less distance. That is the point.

I suspect everyone knows now that a budget/cheaper ball is already shorter than a premium ball, and I don't expect marketing departments to suddenly change their approach just because they bring another ball to market when they already have several balls of varying distances, what difference does it make if they add one more 'tour' ball (or just replace one of the current middle of the road balls with the new ball and they don't even have to expand the range)

they'll still be selling their premium (club golfer) ball too remember

 

[Swango1980]

I suspect everyone knows now that a budget/cheaper ball is already shorter than a premium ball, and I don't expect marketing departments to suddenly change their approach just because they bring another ball to market when they already have several balls of varying distances, what difference does it make if they add one more 'tour' ball (or just replace one of the current middle of the road balls with the new ball and they don't even have to expand the range)

they'll still be selling their premium (club golfer) ball too remember

I think this discussion was about manufacturers not being able to market a major winning ball in the same why that they do currently. If a Major winner won with a Callaway golf ball, that particular ball will probably not be considered premium, as it doesn't go as far. Not sure what the equivalent is, is it like winning a Major with a Warbird? Or, would a Warbird go further than the new ball?

The manufacturers simply bring out a range of products as they know not every golfer will buy the most expensive ball. They'd love it if they did, but they don't. So, they bring out more affordable options to try and capture that market at least. But, I'm sure they want to push as many onto their premium ball that they can, having a Major winner is very useful to that.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

How many courses realistically has that affected ? Maybe not even 1% - the odd Tour course. And even then not that many of them other come up with many other ways to combat the scoring.

For many it’s great to see pros - drive par 4’s , take on par 5’s in two.

At the end of the day it’s a pure token effort that most events won’t go near

They still can take them on. If the tour organisers want that to happen they will just move the tee boxes forward a little. This issue is not about stopping exciting golf, it's about keeping courses within a reasonable area of land, keeping the same character of existing holes, not just moving the tee box further back every few years. This angle is a little like HS2 and saving 10 minutes off London to Glasgow. It isn't about those 10 minutes, it's about increasing capacity. This is not about reducing the excitement of golf, reducing the influence of big hitters. It's about keeping golf within the confines of its current footprint.

As to your last sentence, we will have to see. I would be amazed if the tours as a whole do not simply adopt these new balls, meaning all tournaments use them. I would also not expect pro's to use one ball for regular tournaments, a different one for Majors. That just will not work, the margins for them are too fine to mess about like that.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

They still can take them on. If the tour organisers want that to happen they will just move the tee boxes forward a little. This issue is not about stopping exciting golf, it's about keeping courses within a reasonable area of land, keeping the same character of existing holes, not just moving the tee box further back every few years. This angle is a little like HS2 and saving 10 minutes off London to Glasgow. It isn't about those 10 minutes, it's about increasing capacity. This is not about reducing the excitement of golf, reducing the influence of big hitters. It's about keeping golf within the confines of its current footprint.

As to your last sentence, we will have to see. I would be amazed if the tours as a whole do not simply adopt these new balls, meaning all tournaments use them. I would also not expect pro's to use one ball for regular tournaments, a different one for Majors. That just will not work, the margins for them are too fine to mess about like that.

Again how many courses do you know that have dramatically changed their footprint that much ? None that I can think of in my area ? When I think of the top 100 courses I don’t see many changing , even the open courses not many changing that much.

It doesn’t seem to much of an issue for 99% or the courses

 

[Slab]

I think this discussion was about manufacturers not being able to market a major winning ball in the same why that they do currently. If a Major winner won with a Callaway golf ball, that particular ball will probably not be considered premium, as it doesn't go as far. Not sure what the equivalent is, is it like winning a Major with a Warbird? Or, would a Warbird go further than the new ball?

The manufacturers simply bring out a range of products as they know not every golfer will buy the most expensive ball. They'd love it if they did, but they don't. So, they bring out more affordable options to try and capture that market at least. But, I'm sure they want to push as many onto their premium ball that they can, having a Major winner is very useful to that.

I think it'll be more than sufficient claim to fame material for any half decent marketing team to work with to say that a Taylormade/Callaway etc ball won the US Open

Maybe its just my shopping habits but I very rarely see any online or physical marketing relating to xyz player using abc ball to win The Open. I've never noticed any retailer proclaim 'as used by Ror Scottie to win the Masters' next to xyz ball on any retailer website. I don't doubt there may still page full page ads in the golf media or social media equivalent but at the all important point of sale... not so much