Titleist: "Disappointed"
Boy they work fast up there in Fairhaven. Hot off the presses:
Acushnet Statement re: U.S. PGA Tour Groove Decision
The Acushnet Company is disappointed that the U.S. PGA Tour has decided to adopt the Condition of Competition for the new groove rule effective January 1, 2010.
For the past several months we have communicated with the USGA, the R&A and various worldwide professional tours, our support for aligning adoption of the Condition of Competition with January 1, 2011, the date that manufacturers are required to begin shipping products with the new groove configuration. We believe that alignment of those dates is in the best interest of the professional tours, consumers, retailers and manufacturers. Below are some of the factors that we believe support our position.
Although Acushnet incorporated a new conforming groove configuration into its irons in 2007, we elected to wait to convert our wedges until after the USGA/R&A took final action on the groove proposal. Once the new groove dimensions were finalized, in the rule as adopted in August 2008, we developed a new groove for wedges and began tour player testing in March 2009. We have since tested a significant number of tour players comparing the current and the new groove configurations.
Our test results are consistent with testing conducted by the USGA/R&A that revealed a spin rate reduction of between 30% and 50% for full shots out of the rough. However, our testing also revealed significant changes in ball launch angle, ball trajectory, angle of descent and roll out on the green. The testing also revealed significant differences in performance depending on player club head speed and short game technique. Player reaction to what they saw was dramatic. They were caught off guard by the magnitude of the performance difference and expressed concern about the extent of the transition process.
Momentary pause here to run for my Kleenex box. Continue...
We believe, and players have confirmed, that the conversion process will not be a simple exchange of existing wedges with new grooves. The conversion process may involve different wedge designs and lofts, different shot technique, different golf balls and different set configuration (including drivers). These types of changes are iterative and take time. They also require significant support from players and equipment manufacturers. There are approximately 1,500 exempt tour players worldwide. We don’t believe that this extensive transition process will begin in earnest until late in 2009, when manufacturer tour support is almost non existent. That is particularly true for tours outside of the United States.
The groove rule change is the first time in the history of contemporary competitive golf that equipment performance has been rolled back. Making a change of this precedential significance requires that the conversion process be conducted in a thorough, deliberate manner taking the interests of all constituencies into account. Regardless of how much research and thought went into the development of the rule change, as with any significant change, there are unforeseen issues and complexity, particularly at the point of implementation and adoption. There is no way to predict many of these issues and they only surface during the actual conversion process, as described above. While no one is to blame for these circumstances, the major logistical issues of implementation still need to be taken into account.
Hey, maybe this will force more guys to show up at Kapalua!
One of the most significant consequences of this equipment roll back is that not aligning adoption of the Condition of Competition with the manufacturer sell by date creates a bifurcation between the equipment that the Tours are using and the equipment consumers have available in the market place. That disconnect is also unprecedented. Our research indicates that the majority of retailers and consumers only have an interest in product with the new groove configuration if product with current grooves is not available. On the current schedule that is January 1, 2011. We believe that alignment of these dates to January 1, 2011 is critical as it allows for a thoughtful, orderly and comprehensive implementation of the proposed new grooves for all parties. Non-alignment is not in the best interests of the game of golf and all of its constituencies.
Now that the USPGA Tour has voted to continue with a January 1, 2010 adoption (and we expect all professional tours to follow their lead), we will, as promised all along, make the effort to service all worldwide professional players as best we can. Our irons currently conform to the new rule and we will begin distribution of new wedge product to the professional tours shortly. However, the decision to adopt the Condition of Competition effective January 1, 2010 does not diminish or alter the challenges described above.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 09:47 AM
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (20)
"The testing also revealed significant differences in performance depending on player club head speed and short game technique."
Wow. You mean to say, that players with better technique had better results?
I wish to hereby announce the motto for the next U.S. Open: "We're not trying to identify the best players in the world; we're trying to sponsor the best players in the world..."
But we don't have to worry about it now.
It's just whinning. Pathetic.
A tip of the hat to Finchem. I didn't think he had it in him.
As noted by Chuck and several other of us on a prior thread.
Basically, they are upset because they haven't figured out a way to get around the rule with a new groove desing for wedges.
Since the entire point of the rule was to reduce groove performance, I am not crying about this decison.
The earliest that Titleist's club-staff professionals got them was December '07, is what I was told. That's the earliest of the early-adopting retail market. (Leave out tour-only, tour-van, prototypes.)
But the USGA groove ruling came out in August of '08, right? Titleist was that far ahead of the actual regulation? I don't know. I agree with what you wrote, by the way. The AP irons-compliance claim by Titleist, whether it is true or not, sure doesn't help their case on 'inability to prepare.' We pajama-wearing typists might just have forced Titleist to refine its argument in the way we see in the press release --
'Sure, the irons are no problem, but wedges are different. Our boys might go to 64 degrees, so there, blazer-wearers! And when you try to return some of that spin to the ball, well then it just screws up all the numbers on the launch monitors, so we have to build new drivers for these guys...'
And you know what? I believe Titleist. Dick Rugge is looking smarter and smarter by the hour...
1) "We cannot, with a couple of years warning have enough clubs ready to re-equip all the pro's, so we recommend moving it back to the same time we ALSO have to have the new clubs ready for all retail market!" (1/1/2011)
2) " Projects like this MUST allow for significant conversion time, and we wasted ours complaining and now need more."
As for the rest, I think Titleist is worried about everything. When you are the market leader, you don't want disruptions that cause people to have to test and change equipment. Too many chances to lose market share.
1) Driver market share -- If everyone has to change drivers also, perhaps the lack of an adjustable driver will hurt them in the below PGA competitive ranks.
2) Rumors are Volkey has not found a wedge grove they are happy with and market share is threatened.
3) V1 costs. They have spent a lot of money retooling, thanks to the lawsuit, and it is highly expensive to retool again.
BTW, I have used my last Titleist product. I was down to using the balls once in a while--but I'm over them. Oh, and their shoes suck too!
The reason for the "window" of calendar year 2010, with the manufacturing dro-dead date of Jan. 1, 2011, is this;
The USGA wanted to give manufacturers with components in process a full year to move the component parts through the manufacturing, inventory and distribution processes. It was a favor, and a reasonable accomodation, that the USGA granted to manufacturers. The manufacturers have a full year to move out all old-spec clubheads that were cast, forged, and finished by Dec. 31, 2009, get them fitted with shafts and grips, and get them out to retailers. (Who can then sell them, legally under the Rules of Golf, anytime.) No lost inventory, no 'non-conforming' inventory, no fire sales, no waiting to buy or to sell clubs on New Year's eve.
For Titleist to take the position that an extra year is somehow needed, to coordinate with a 2011 cutoff date, and it is unfair or unjust or nonsensical to deny that request, is BALONEY. The extra year of manufacturing in process was for the manufacturers' benefit and for their own clarity.
But I give Titlieist's press release lawyers high marks for creativity and malevolence.
As for the ball issue...
I think someone above hit the nail on the head, re-tooling is expensive, and the ball our now will not work with the new grooves.
It is going to be interesting
"The groove rule change is the first time in the history of contemporary competitive golf that equipment performance has been rolled back. Making a change of this precedential significance requires that the conversion process be conducted in a thorough, deliberate manner taking the interests of all constituencies into account."
There sure have been plenty of recent instances where equipment performances have been "rolled forward" and the players have adjusted on the fly without any mess or fuss whatsoever. They all tested and tried hybrids during the season, in practice rounds, on the practice tee, on weeks off at home etc. Adding hybrids would have changed set makeup too, what club do you drop, what lofts do I need on my fairway wood, on the hybrids and the longer irons etc.
When new ball technology comes out, same deal, they test at home, on the range, practice rounds etc. Same for large driver heads, adjustable weights, shafts types and material, etc etc and on and on. All these new technologies are designed to help them so they don't whine one little bit, they are excited and happy to test on the fly and implement as soon as they are ready. The players are always testing new equipment and new technology.
This is no different, this is just new technology again, just this time it just isn't going to help them so they cry foul! They are all hiding behind this being a "NEW RULE" rather just "new equipment" to get use to like they have been doing for years. Since it hurts them they hate it. PATHETIC!!!!
This will of course require a new ball, new driver, etc. I look forward to the challenge and the innovation challenge. I'm sure the ball guys and Vokey are eager to take on the challenge.
I agree this is all about the Pro V1 ball.
Also didn't most of the players immediately put the Pro V1 into play the week it was approved. I believe the winner used it the first week on the approved list.
I think you better be using Titleist toilet paper on this mess of a press release.
Just from a leadership perspective, I would have rather had Titleist tout how our new fitting process will educate and enhance our players' games rather than complaining about the time factor. We've known about this for quite a while.
Titleist needs to be the FIRST and LEADER in the custom fitting market and what better opportunity to make this happen beginning January 1, 2010. My account is based on bringing a "tour-like" experience home to my players I and guarantee my mini-tour players at the very least will be looking to me for advice and proper fitting beginning next year. If I don't have product in my hand that conforms, I will be at a serious disadvantage, especially if other companies beat Titleist to the market.