Stat profiles for 1500 golfers
John Huggan had a chance to sit down with Wally Uihlein, CEO of Acushnet Company, which is comprised of the Titleist, FootJoy and Cobra Golf brands, for an exclusive interview in April.
Their discussion focused on equipment advances and regulation, and also ranged to Tiger Woods, Uihlein’s battle with cancer, and other topics.
Below is Part One in which Uihlein talks about technology and the problems that have been associated with this.
|
Below is Part One in which Uihlein talks about technology and the problems that have been associated with this.
|
JOHN HUGGAN: How do you feel about the coverage you get in the media with regard to the technology issue?
|
This morning we met with Peter Dawson [chief executive of the R&A] on the groove issue. I asked Peter which players he talks to for feedback. His response was, “just Tiger.” Anyone else? “Sometimes Vijay.”
The end result is that there is no balance, with voices from a number of constituencies represented: young, old, high-skilled, low-skilled, players who have benefited from technology, and those who haven’t. Which only reinforces the impression we have that the regulatory bodies are very insulated in terms of who they talk to.
So we’re not surprised that there is a media imbalance. When we defend technology it is easy to write, “Well, what do you expect them (the equipment manufacturers) to say?”
|
|
JH: But what difference does that make to your bottom line?
WU: It’s a fair question. But there is no instance in any sport where there has been a rollback of the instruments used. Track and field isn’t going back to bamboo poles for the pole vault. So there is no precedent.
JH: I’m speaking as a life-long golfer here. None of what you have said so far is going to make any difference to the ball I buy and play with. I’m still going to buy a Titleist.
WU: I can’t say I disagree with you. We’re not that intransigent.
JH: So what’s the problem then? If the R&A and the USGA knocked 15 percent off the ball tomorrow, would you sue them?
WU: The grounds for litigation would only be absence of due process. It wouldn’t be the result. It would be a why are you doing that? Which would leave the burden on us to prove that by doing that they were affecting our business.
There is a fine line between the rulers and those who are ruled upon. We are prepared to be ruled upon as long as there is due process and as long as those rules do not influence the commercial landscape.
|
|
JH: But you have no evidence that such a ruling would hurt you?WU: No. Which is why we haven’t litigated anyone.
JH: But they haven’t done anything yet.
WU: Quite the opposite, actually. The last 10 years have seen more rulesmaking than any other decade in golf.
But let’s get back to the issue of the commercial sector. One of our problems is that we are seen as something of a technological leader. The fact is that the last 10 years have been the most activist phase in rules making.
JH: Is it not a chicken and egg situation though? Haven’t you forced them to make more rules?
WU: They will say that. Which is somewhat true. But if we look at the last 10 years maybe six milestone events have combined to pretty much corral the field.
First of all, we have lost some of the distance tolerance we had. I feel we are 99 yards down field in that respect.
|
|
|
JH: So will you close down your R&D department?
WU: No. Because there is still a lot going on. They are going to change the grooves. You are soon going to be playing with V-grooves and wondering how much of your loss of spin—between 30 to 50 percent—can you get back from changing the ball. Then you’ll want to know how much distance you will lose as a result of that change.
JH: Surely the ball is an easier target for change. Why are they causing more expense for the consumer rather than introducing the possibility of affecting your bottom line?
WU: I can see that from where you sit. But let’s use the tour as an example. I see launch conditions off the tee from eight degrees to 13 degrees. I see spin rates from 1,900 to 2,800. Now suddenly you want to re-toggle. So you have to decide what to roll back. Is it going to be velocity? Is it going to be spin? How are you going to roll back the ball? You have to decide.
JH: Isn’t that what you should be talking to the R&A and USGA about? Shouldn’t you come up with the best way of doing just that?
WU: But there is a real conundrum involved in all that. In the 1980s, how many golf ball patents do you think were issued? It was 50. In the 1990s that figure was 500. And in this decade it is projected that there will be 2,000. So if you start re-toggling the specifications you are going to enter someone’s patent-protected universe to the exclusion of others. There isn’t a company out there—and certainly not us—who is going to say they are happy to give everyone a paid-up license.
|
So whatever they do, someone will get hurt?
|
Yes. And they will sue. And that is the untold story. Trust me, it boggles the minds of our shareholders. It boggles my mind as a businessman that the golf ball category—which is only $1 billion in wholesale—has 2,000 patents in this decade. It makes no sense. We’re talking about a regulated product category. We’re talking about a category where weight, size, velocity, and distance are already capped and there are 2,000 new golf ball patents in less than 10 years? It makes no sense.
JH: How about the bifurcation argument? Isn’t the grooves thing a step down that road?
WU: It is a de-facto bifurcation, yes.
JH: So why not have a tournament ball for the professionals? And a ball for the rest of us. Then we can stop screwing with all these great golf courses.
WU: You have to capitulate to me a little bit when it comes to saving the great courses. The professional game is only played on about 100 of the great courses.
JH: True. And believe me when I say that I have no desire to hurt your bottom line. I’m all for you making lots of money.
WU: I know. But there has been a lot of hyperbole written and spoken about us obsoleting all these courses.
|
|
|
JH: Sit down and talk about it.
WU: OK, but trust me when I tell you that it will favor one player over another. When you deal with the range of launch conditions I mentioned earlier and the spin rates, someone is going to be disadvantaged. It will lead to a bias and not just in distance. The short game will be affected too.
Take Geoff Ogilvy. In the short game, he is a “slider.” And someone like Mark Calcavecchia is a “trapper.” Once you decide on what ball you are going to use, the differences between those two types of players are going to be magnified. Wherever you land, one is going to be favored over the other. Take that to the bank.
JH: I can live with that though.
WU: (laughs) I know you can. But you don’t want to be the player who is disadvantaged. And I don’t think you want to go to that guy and tell him that his competition is going to have an edge. Or that he is going to have to adjust.
JH: Wouldn’t that just be a short-term thing though? People do adapt.
WU: That’s a good lead into the wedge thing. Right now, there hasn’t been full disclosure to the tour players about exactly how much spin reduction they are going to be facing. I told Peter Dawson that. His reaction was that they will have to learn to drive the ball better. Maybe, but the first thing they are going to say to us is, “Can you make me up a ball that will recover half of the spin I have lost?” Then they will see if they can learn to live with the loss of distance that ball will cause.
Every player is like that. They all try to solve problems with technology first. Only if that doesn’t work do they change something they are doing.
I asked Peter if he really thought that there guys out there who don’t think they drive the ball well. I mean, come on. They all think they drive the ball well. They’re not convinced that this groove thing is going to improve their driving accuracy.
|
On a practical level, do you think this will lead to courses growing more rough or less?
|
I think the first thing that should happen is that tournament setups will change. They can start putting the pins back on the greens for example. And I’m not in favor of rough. I’m a minimalist. The disease of American architecture is the high cost of maintenance caused by some of these modern designs. And that is where I get polarized by some of the architects who take the bully pulpit on technology.
I’ve served on a number of greens committees, and courses are not meant to have multi-million dollar maintenance budgets.
JH: This is perhaps an unfair question, but if you were in charge of golf what would you do?
WU: The czar for a day question?
JH: Yes.
WU: The first thing you have to understand is that my powers would be a bi-product of those being ruled upon being willing to assign me power. So I’d have to open things up. The whole idea of the benevolent despot doesn’t work here.
JH: Forget being benevolent. Let’s do what you want to do.
WU: Because of what I do, I’m too sensitive to all of the variables. There are all those legal issues, for example. All those patents. I spend 20 percent of my time on patent administration. That is not why I went to school. That is not why I am in the golf business. I’m in this business because I love the game.
A sidebar. I shared with Peter Dawson today how much we spend to engage the compliance activities—ball and club—that we now have to because of rules that have come down over the last decade. We invest over $1 million in testing equipment and $500,000 per year in on-going compliance expenses. We’re a big company. How do the smaller guys cope with all that? They have no chance.
The point is, as I said to Peter, is that none of this is free.
|
You’re going to have a hard time getting anyone to feel sorry for Titleist.
|
We don’t make an effort to bring that about. We see ourselves as the loyal opposition in all of this. Plus, the ball can’t talk. When people start whacking on the ball, whether I like it or not, I have to become the voice of technology. In all fairness, no one is representing technology.
JH: I’m still mystified by this reluctance to bifurcate when the difference between the game we play and the game the pros play has never been more marked.
WU: But, again, you have to admit that if you and I took the top 10 money winners off the European Tour circa 1987 versus 2007, we would be dealing with bigger people. The game is polarized by that alone. We can’t be telling these big guys that they have to play like the smaller guys of years ago. That ain’t going to happen. If I stand next to Ernie Els he feels like an aircraft carrier.
JH: But aren’t we just protecting the marketing slogans used by companies like yours—the “this is the longest ball” stuff? Isn’t that a small price to pay if we can get the top players playing a more interesting game?
WU: While the game may be a little less interesting at that level, I think we are overreacting. Here at Augusta National is a good case in point. They have never needed rough here. But they grew it anyway. Then again, these guys are pretty good at what they do. I still stand on the 15th fairway and from only 150 yards it is still a pretty daunting shot. I’m not sure I agree….
JH: Feel free to disagree, but I just feel that, at the top level, the price we are paying for a ball that goes too far is too much. The courses are being changed—not for the better—and the game is just less interesting to watch and, I have to assume, play. The ball doesn’t go sideways enough, for example.
WU: It doesn’t. The tour balata ball used to spin at 4,000 rpms. The ball today spins at 2,200 and, as a consequence, disperses 50 percent less.
But to get back to your point, the ball is held to have committed crimes against the state because that is the thing that moves. We have research that shows that the contributing variables—driver, ball, and size, which is a major factor through clubhead speed—are all part of what you think is a problem.
|
|
You are right about that. When was the last time you heard a commentator say that a guy was swinging “within himself?” Payne Stewart used to do that, but no one does now. Every piece of equipment is matched up with the player and so he can hit as hard as he can. We are playing with over-sized tennis racquets.
JH: You are far too good at what you do. But have you turned what should be an art form into too much of a science?
WU: I think that was inevitable. But we are not in this alone. We are not the black-hooded guys who have been driving the train into the abyss. Everyone is part of this. By playing for so much money the tours now attract a different segment of the population.
I know you have been quick to whack on some of the golf academies we have now. But when I go to places like Korea, there is an academy on every street corner and parents are hoping they have girls rather than boys so that they can avoid the military commitment and provide the family with a meal ticket through golf. That is part of why the LPGA Tour is today dominated by Koreans. It has nothing to do with the U.S. academies. They are innocents compared with what is going on in some other countries.
But it is inevitable. Look at all the money being played for all over the world every year. What are we talking about, $600 million? That’s going to attract a lot of kids who used to go into other sports.
1 comment
SaMad --- Jan 21st, 2010 08:32 pm
| This debate drives me potty. There is so much talk about it and so little gets done. Like changing the grooves has had a really marked effect on the PGA Tour so far. We amateurs don't want to give up our Pro-V1s and 460cc drivers, but we do want to see the pros shape shots, and use strategy rather than just hit driver, sand wedge at every hole. Of course there is no right answer to any of this. Someone somewhere is going to be upset or, as Uihlein says, disadvantaged. But do something! Start by bifurcating, not just grooves, but balls, shaft and clubheads too. If it doesn't work for whatever reason, try something else. If nothing happens to restrain it, golf on TV will soon become unbearable to watch and ignorant golfers the world over will continue demanding their course be lengthened to keep up with PGA Tour National. The course I play at is already well over 7,000 yards long, but no one can break 80 playing it at that distance. What's the point? With this scenario, fewer and fewer people will find golf interesting, and once fun and entertaining courses will become boring and tedious. |
