Interview with Wally Uihlein

[iacas]

http://www.golfobserver.com/blog/blo.../29/wallypart1

http://www.golfobserver.com/blog/blo.../29/wallypart2

Anyone with any thoughts?

[plugged]

2,000 patents on golf balls? In just this decade alone?

Ridiculous.

[plugged]

Oh, and one more comment. All these incredible technology improvements have not done a thing for the average player. They still suck at the game of golf. They just have better looking clubs to do it with.

[kafka01]

Oh, and one more comment. All these incredible technology improvements have not done a thing for the average player. They still suck at the game of golf. They just have better looking clubs to do it with.

Not exactly true - was looking for the graph but couldnt find it, but over the last couple years the average USGA hcp actually improved (i think 1-2 strokes if i remember correctly).

[iacas]

All these incredible technology improvements have not done a thing for the average player.

Not true at all.

I found the interview interesting, and I agree on a number of points ("tournament" balls will favor one type of player over another, it's not just the ball, very very few golf courses have become "obsolete," the PGA Tour is entertainment, maybe we'll see less rough and pins that are actually on the greens, etc.) but I'm mostly waiting to see what pieces other people pick up and comment on first.

[plugged]

Not exactly true - was looking for the graph but couldnt find it, but over the last couple years the average USGA hcp actually improved (i think 1-2 strokes if i remember correctly).

If true, I stand corrected. I guess I base that on anecdotal evidence. It seems like the new technology encourages a lot of average players to try to play outside their abilities, which if you don't have the fundamentals down very well, is not a good idea.

I'm mostly waiting to see what pieces other people pick up and comment on first

My main comment on this is that everything the USGA and the R&A; do should keep the interests of the average player squarely in mind, even above that of the pro tours. Golf is enjoying its heyday right now and if that changes, or we fail to keep the next generation engaged, then the whole sport will suffer. People will start watching and playing something other than golf tournaments in the future and ad revenues will plumment. Look no further than the LPGA.

[Where's the Cart Girl?]

JH: Have you sent a shorter ball to the USGA for them to look at? WU: In response to the 25-yard rollback, we sent them combinations of balls and drivers that will produce the same benefit. It isn’t just the ball. We felt that both club and ball should be addressed. They understand our position. They want us to submit some additional balls and we’re working on that. It isn’t the most important thing in our queue, but we’re working on it. JH: Have you tried any of them? WU: We had some players hit them. JH: Did you? WU: I have. JH: What’s your handicap? WU: Five. JH: What difference did it make to you? WU: The ball curved more. So if you are not playing that well, the impact of off-center hits is more marked. JH: Did it ask more of you as a player? WU: It was different. The ball felt different. It was no different from being in a fast car, then going to a slow one. When you step on the pedal, you notice the difference. JH: So it made a difference at your level? WU: Yes. But whether it was a performance difference or an aesthetic difference, there was a difference.

I read the whole thing. I don't like this guy. I'm not a businessman, so perhaps I'm a bit biased in that I hear him talk down of trial lawyers but I see him the same way. He says that criminal proceedings are theatrics, I see all business as theatrics. It has to be that way, yes, but he's still a hypocrite.

Anyway, I pulled this section out because I think it illustrates a few things: 1.) He's stubborn. 2.) He's smart enough to know how to protect his assets. "we sent them combinations of balls and drivers that will produce the same benefit" 3.) Most importantly.... The change is across the board. He admitted (albeit he is a low handicapper) he is not a tour player and he noticed. IMO he's seeing this as - Shit. Regular guys might actually notice this, regular guys are the ones paying $400 for a driver or $50 for 12 golf balls. We've convinced them that they're better than they are, if they quit playing what am I gonna do? I'm sure he did one or two things right to get to where he is and put Acushnet where it is, but IMO he's on a power trip. Pretty full of himself (he is from Boston though ) The fact is, there is a paradigm shift taking place in the market and it allows some other company the chance to be the first to put out the "best ball for the new rules." And that very well could be Acushnet, but from their seat as the incumbent it must look threatening. I'd have a lot more respect for this guy if he said - We're welcoming the challenge of putting out the best products for any changes that governing authorities impose, and we will take this as a chance to once again display while we're the industry leaders in.....etc. But no. He cries patent freedoms, lack of due process, BS, BS, BS. Final thought: "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.” Give me a f*ckin break buddy. Feel free to chew me up for missing some points, but you asked for comments, and this is what I think. My "initial read" for this article.

[iacas]

I read the whole thing. I don't like this guy.

That's obvious. Why not stop your commentary there?

1.) He's stubborn.

Maybe. Or maybe he's the CEO of a company like Acushnet, and "stubbornness" is simply a multi-million dollar position. I don't like making personal judgments about how someone behaves in business. Or, for that matter, how a lawyer behaves on behalf of his client.

3.) Most importantly.... The change is across the board. He admitted (albeit he is a low handicapper) he is not a tour player and he noticed. IMO he's seeing this as - Shit.

How does this make him a bad person, someone you don't like, etc.? He thinks it'll affect everyone. A common belief held by those on the other side in favor of a ball rollback say it won't affect the common golfer, just the PGA Tour guys. Wally not only appreciates the huge gap between pros and the average player, but says that even that huge gap won't shield the average guy from noticing a change.

I'm sure he did one or two things right to get to where he is and put Acushnet where it is, but IMO he's on a power trip.

I don't see much evidence of that. I think your opinion's tainted by some pre-conceived notions.

The fact is, there is a paradigm shift taking place in the market and it allows some other company the chance to be the first to put out the "best ball for the new rules." And that very well could be Acushnet, but from their seat as the incumbent it must look threatening.

Exactly where is this power shift occurring? The rules affecting the golf ball haven't been changed. The groove rule? I doubt we'll see any people switching brands on the PGA Tour - they may get a few more Pro V1 players coming over from Pro V1x, but that's about it.

I'd have a lot more respect for this guy if he said - We're welcoming the challenge of putting out the best products for any changes that governing authorities impose, and we will take this as a chance to once again display while we're the industry leaders in.....etc.

He's said that several times when asked about things like the grooves, and that's the only rule that's changed lately.

Besides, if he said that, I have the feeling you'd suggest he was lying or throwing out marketing lines.

But no. He cries patent freedoms, lack of due process, BS, BS, BS.

I don't think you really read that portion very well, or again, you let your pre-conceived notions get in the way.

He's simply saying that if the USGA rolled back balls in such a way that one company's set of patents became the relevant ones, then that company would have an advantage and every other competing company would be at a disadvantage. That's likely illegal (for the USGA to legislate competitive/free market type stuff like that)... He'd love it if there was a rollback and it happened to put the ball in an area in which Titleist owns the relevant patents, but he also recognizes that Srixon, TaylorMade, Nike, etc. would likely sue, then. From what I can tell, it's a good point that not many people have made. He also recognizes that any ball rollback will favor one type of player and put others at a disadvantage, and that isn't really fair, and people aren't talking much about that fact, either.

"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.”

Who needs to give you a break? Peter Dawson? How is this Wally's "f*ckin break" to give?

Feel free to chew me up for missing some points, but you asked for comments, and this is what I think. My "initial read" for this article.

Didn't think I had to specify that those with a huge pre-conceived bias needed to respond.

FWIW, I don't think there was anything new in this interview, nothing overwhelmingly "cool" or "good" or anything, just the same old stuff, and a few opinions I agree with (like the favoring of certain types of players). Pretty "eh" interview, really. And I've met Wally, so maybe my expectations are higher. He's a smart cookie, and he cares a LOT about golf.

[Golfer71]

The interview covers many bases and is interesting.

I am wondering if the complexity surrounding the use of patents in golf ball design is central to the decision to limit groove design on wedges / irons. Was it just simpler in legal terms to limit groove technology than roll back ball design?

I'm not in favour of bifurcation of golf equipment, I want to play equipment that is broadly similar to that played by the pros. Nor do I want to see the great courses of the world close or become arkwardly extended to accmodate ever longer hitters.

The issue seems to revolve around limiting the ability of the pros to score ever lower - would it be so bad if the pros scoring averages did drop as equipment improvements continue?

[Where's the Cart Girl?]

That's obvious. Why not stop your commentary there?

Because I wanted to contribute something to the thread and at least mention the golf stuff. I could go into any thread where someone is trying to fix a problem and respond "stop doing that" but that wouldn't have much positive effect.

I don't like making personal judgments about how someone behaves in business. Or, for that matter, how a lawyer behaves on behalf of his client.

Nor do I. I made no judgement of character based on how his business persona is behaving. I see him as stubborn because of the nature of his responses to the questions here. "Did

you try it?" - the players did "Did it ask more of you of a player?" - It was different. "So it made a difference at your level?" - yes, but .... I feel like he was fabricating responses to sound a certain way. Er-go he lost some integrity in my mind. I've never met the guy, you've never met me, etc. We form our judgements on here based on what we have to this point. I went by what I got from the interview.

He's said that several times when asked about things like the grooves, and that's the only rule that's changed lately.

Well not in this article, and this is all I read. He certainly didn't take this position here from what I gathered and you asked for our take on this article.

How does this make him a bad person, someone you don't like, etc.?

I didn't say bad person. It added to my negative op of him in that he acted like he was admitting guilt to something. He

is acknowledging the fact that reg. guys can tell a difference and he knows that if they quit playing, or quit being so willing to pay top $$$ for equipment with the game at a more difficult level he loses money. I didn't like the way he answered, what more do you want?

I don't see much evidence of that. I think your opinion's tainted by some pre-conceived notions.

"In 1976, he joined Acushnet as a regional sales representative and within a year, Uihlein became Titleist's national sales manager." Look I'm not saying he didn't work hard, and I have no idea what it takes to climb a corporate ladder because I've never tried. I based my power trip statement on the nature of his responses and the fact that I didn't see less than a year's time being nearly enough to pay your dues anywhere and ascend to a position like this. And that can be a surge for a person's ego. I didn't pre-conceive anything. I'd never even heard of the guy before this. I play Titleist balls, wear Footjoys, and have no problem with a pro's ability being accentuated or diminished by technology. So if anything, reading that he's a leading player in all these things, I should've liked him. Then I read the article and he rubbed me the wrong way. Ever read a post on here and think - this guy sounds like a dick. Did you pre-conceive his dickditude? Not likely, you just read his statements one way or another.

Besides, if he said that, I have the feeling you'd suggest he was lying or throwing out marketing lines.

Or I'd respect him more like I said. Either way...

Who needs to give you a break? Peter Dawson? How is this Wally's "f*ckin break" to give?

You really think that the chief exec. of the R&A; only cares what Tiger thinks? The R&A; bases their stance on feedback exclusively from 1 player? You can give me a f*ckin break then. I find it hard to believe that Peter Dawson would actually say that because I find it hard to believe it's the truth. So it's Wally's break to give because I think he's BS here.

I doubt we'll see any people switching brands on the PGA Tour - they may get a few more Pro V1 players coming over from Pro V1x, but that's about it.

Okay, if you want to continue this debate we can start here, as it actually has something to do with golf, as opposed to allowing this to go the route of so many foregone threads here....

I think that you absolutely will see players switch brands if one emerged as a frontrunner for technology that fits within any new rules. If company A put out a set of irons that conform to the new rules and, accompanied with new ball from company A, spin to 95% of what the players were used to getting players would run either run for it or run to their company and say - make me one of those. If said company A has patented this, what would the player do in your mind? I think that brand loyalty will diminish somewhat (Wally sees this coming) and I think it's inviting an opportunity for smaller companies to be more clever than larger ones and steal a share of the market. And I like that. If I took one golf related tidbit from the article (besides the Moe Norman stuff that was incredible to read) it was his statement that new rule changes will be discernible to guys like me. He is Titleist, and he's saying that all us Titleist players out here are going to notice a difference for the difficult. And if RAM put out a set of irons that played exactly the same as always, I'd buy them.

[iacas]

I didn't say bad person. It added to my negative op of him in that he acted like he was admitting guilt to something.

Admitting guilt? Suffice to say I don't see it that way. Building a company that produces a golf ball more people use than any other brand is something for which he should feel guilty?

He

You don't think Callaway, TaylorMade, or Nike people feel exactly the same way?

I based my power trip statement on ... fact that I didn't see less than a year's time being nearly enough to pay your dues anywhere and ascend to a position like this. And that can be a surge for a person's ego.

OK, so a lot of assumption going on... First you assume that it's not enough time to warrant a promotion, then you assume that what must have been an undeservedly rapid promotion must have given him an ego.

You were born eleven years after Uihlein moved up to national sales manager. Do you know how large a region was for Titleist in 1976? If there were only five regions, is it still inconceivable he might have moved up? Seven? Should they have promoted a suckier sales rep based solely on "paid-his-dues" seniority? You're certainly entitled to your opinions, just as I am entitled to point out why your opinions strike me as uninformed.

You really think that the chief exec. of the R&A; only cares what Tiger thinks? The R&A; bases their stance on feedback exclusively from 1 player? You can give me a f*ckin break then. I find it hard to believe that Peter Dawson would actually say that because I find it hard to believe it's the truth. So it's Wally's break to give because I think he's BS here.

So you immediately jump to "Uihlein is a liar" instead? How well do you know Peter Dawson? I don't know him except having read about him a lot, but someone who has written a lot of those things because he does know him pretty well is John Huggan, a Brit golf writer. And he didn't even challenge Wally on the point, likely because he understood it to be true.

I think that you absolutely will see players switch brands if one emerged as a frontrunner for technology that fits within any new rules.

First, there aren't new rules concerning the golf ball. Second, I doubt very much that any one company is going to come up with a set of wedge grooves/ball combo that both meet the new rules and out-perform others by such a large margin that players are going to switch en masse.

Since the majority of players have had conforming grooves in their 3-PW, remember this would be a switch for one or two clubs: the sand wedge and lob wedge. While important to a PGA Tour pro, they're not the sole factors in deciding which company's equipment to use. Even if (and I don't think it'll happen) some company took a commanding lead in "spin retention on your two wedges," a lot of players won't switch based on two clubs.

I think that brand loyalty will diminish somewhat (Wally sees this coming) and I think it's inviting an opportunity for smaller companies to be more clever than larger ones and steal a share of the market. And I like that.

Did you miss the part where he said that Titleist is a "smaller company" in the golf landscape when compared to Bridgestone, Srixon, Nike, and Adidas.

If I took one golf related tidbit from the article (besides the Moe Norman stuff that was incredible to read) it was his statement that new rule changes will be discernible to guys like me.

Look, not trying to question your reading comprehension here, but he was talking about the club/ball combo that went 25 yards shorter in that section... not the groove rule change. Perhaps I missed that part where he talked about it in regards to the groove rule change, but I don't think I did.

On the grooves issue, every player - with every company - is going to notice a change. The USGA has already disallowed some wedges that conformed to the letter of the law but not the intent when it comes to spin (Callaway and Nike, I believe), and from a physics standpoint I simply don't see a company getting back 95% of the spin and retaining the current distance. Every player - not just every Titleist player - is going to be affected by the groove rule. The worse the player, the less they'll notice, too, so the average player will NOT notice much of a difference, if any, in the groove rule. The USGA's already published papers saying this and why.

[FHopper]

I am an old fart who grew up in a golf household. Dad played well over 200 days a year. As a kid, youth, and young adult I played, albeit poorly, but I played. I essentially had not played since. I have been around the golf culture long enough that I have found my own place in it. I revere the traditions, admire the magnificent venues, and am amazed at the skills of professional golfers. I love the brands associated with golf because of the traditions they bring to mind. I will not sell my George Low putter and love my old Titleist irons as pieces of craftsmanship. All that said I am very unqualified to say much about the state of the game as anything other than a complete hack. I only this year decided to actually learn to play golf instead of simply enjoy the golf experience/ambiance.

The state of technology is amazing. I assumed I wasn’t good enough to play Titleist products so I went with a company who has made its name bringing game improvement to the masses. I read this article with no knowledge of the specifics of the “history” of the people or topics. I found the relationship between the interviewer and Wally to be a healthy one. I found Wally to be exactly what he should be, very knowledgeable and speaking from the perspective of the leader of one of the treasures of the golf culture, the Acushnet brands. His comment about the impact of the VLSC, (very large scary companies), on the industry was spot on. I think the landscape will change and the “tertiary” companies as he calls them will be replaced by Chinese knock-off companies. Innovation will slow as the competitive culture changes to one of simply copying the success of the big guy’s product. As such the problem of over regulation which appears to exist will go away, as will the excitement of innovation. For me the unsaid implications are the most interesting; so who will buy Acushnet? Should Acushnet go on a buying spree and try to become a VLSC? How many companies will there be?

[Where's the Cart Girl?]

Admitting guilt?... Building a company that produces a golf ball more people use than any other brand is something for which he should feel guilty?

No. Read what I wrote. I said he came off in this manner. It was a metaphor for the way he answered not what his answers meant.

Did you miss the part where he said that Titleist is a "smaller company" in the golf landscape when compared to Bridgestone, Srixon, Nike, and Adidas.

Perhaps "smaller company" was a bit of a misnomer earlier when I was referring to other companies because Acushnet technically is financially less present in the global golf industry, but I would argue that it is more commercially present than Srixon or Bridgestone. And that is due to their products, not money or global pedigree. Which is good on them. I suppose I would have been better served to use something like 'lower-profile' in that post.

First you assume that it's not enough time to warrant a promotion, then you assume that what must have been an undeservedly rapid promotion must have given him an ego...If there were only five regions, is it still inconceivable he might have moved up? Seven? Should they have promoted a suckier sales rep based solely on "paid-his-dues" seniority?

I have no idea what Titleist's landscape looked like in '76 but I refuse to believe that less than a year is enough time to warrant such a promotion. And quite frankly, If I went in to work on Monday and put an idea on my bosses desk that changed the way every person in the world lives their lives I wouldn't expect a promotion like that by years end.

And no, I'm not a union delegate that puts the worth of an individual on how long they've worked here, there, wherever. And I bet he always had the ego, they just stroked it for him.

And he didn't even challenge Wally on the point, likely because he understood it to be true.

Or he didn't want to detract from the interview. Kind of like what's taking place right now on this thread.

Since the majority of players have had conforming grooves in their 3-PW, remember this would be a switch for one or two clubs: the sand wedge and lob wedge. While important to a PGA Tour pro, they're not the sole factors in deciding which company's equipment to use. Even if (and I don't think it'll happen) some company took a commanding lead in "spin retention on your two wedges," a lot of players won't switch based on two clubs.

Ok, now were back on track. This I didn't know. But I'm not as plugged into the golf info community as you are. I was unaware that it was integrated to such a degree tour-wide already. My mistake. And having read this I would reconsider my notion of a large scale migration of tour pros one way or another based on a first-to-the-finish-line development in technology.

Second, I doubt very much that any one company is going to come up with a set of wedge grooves/ball combo that both meet the new rules and out-perform others by such a large margin...

Here we still disagree, because I do believe it it will happen. As a member of the engineering community I believe that some company, somewhere will do something that as of now seems impossible and get the state of the game/technology right back to where it is. And I for one hope that it's a company most of us have never even heard of as of yet. No policing agency can put a cap on the creativity of design engineers out there. And I like the fact that the incumbent positions of Nike, Acushnet, TM, whoever, are threatened here.

[Leftygolfer]

I liked the article. It was interesting. I hope they don't roll back technology. The game is challenging and I like the way it is now. People still suck, 95% of players don't ever break 90.

It just isn't very easy.