Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 5349 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

Of course ! the newest edition of the Pro V1x is a LOT better than the previous, but ...... ???

How much difference can we expect from the new 2011 Pro V1x compared to the old rock

The reason I ask is that maybe it is time now to work out a deal with the shopowner, to buy his stock of 2009 all at once at a decent price, or to wait for the new model......

Cal Razr Hawk 10.5 | TM Superfast 3W | Adams Idea Pro Black 20 | MP-68 3-PW | TW9 50/06 + 58/12 | Ram Zebra Putter


  • 1 month later...
Posted

I personally like the 2009 (and 2007) version better.  The 2011 version felt firmer to me.  I'm willing to sacrifice a little durability for a softer feel, but I realize I'm in the monority.....

Driver:       Cobra AMP Cell - Blue

Fairway:    TM Rocketballz Stage 2  *17
Hybrids:    Callaway X2 Hot 19* and 22*
Irons:        Mizuno MX-23 5-PW
Wedges:   Cleveland 588  51*, 56*, 60*

Putter:      Scotty Cameron GoLo Customized

Ball:          Srixon Z Star (2013)


Posted

Actually, the '09 is better.  A lot of Titleist tour pros are still using the old ball.  The lawsuit with Callaway really set Titleist back in terms of ball technology.

Whats in my :sunmountain: C-130 cart bag?

Woods: :mizuno: JPX 850 9.5*, :mizuno: JPX 850 15*, :mizuno: JPX-850 19*, :mizuno: JPX Fli-Hi #4, :mizuno: JPX 800 Pro 5-PW, :mizuno: MP T-4 50-06, 54-09 58-10, :cleveland: Smart Square Blade and :bridgestone: B330-S


  • Administrator
Posted

Originally Posted by TitleistWI

Actually, the '09 is better.  A lot of Titleist tour pros are still using the old ball.  The lawsuit with Callaway really set Titleist back in terms of ball technology.


The lawsuit Callaway isn't really even winning? The bulk of their patents (maybe all?) were ruled invalid last time I checked. And the 2009 versions were done "after" the lawsuit as well. The logic doesn't hold up.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted


Originally Posted by iacas

The lawsuit Callaway isn't really even winning? The bulk of their patents (maybe all?) were ruled invalid last time I checked. And the 2009 versions were done "after" the lawsuit as well. The logic doesn't hold up.

As Iacas pointed out, the issue was for designs done well before 2009, and in fact Titleist changed the design in 2007 in anticipation of the late 2007 jury ruling upholding Callaway's patents.   Almost exactly a year ago a different jury invalidated all Callaway's claims.    Callaway is now waiting to see if the courts will grant a new trial per their latest motion.   If anyone is interesting in the longer version, here are the details from Callaway's latest 10-k SEC filing:

On February 9, 2006, Callaway Golf filed a complaint in the United States District Court in Delaware (Case No. C.A. 06-91) asserting patent infringement claims against Acushnet, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fortune Brands, alleging that Acushnet’s Titleist Pro V1 family of golf balls infringed nine claims contained in four golf ball patents owned by Callaway Golf. Acushnet later stipulated that the Pro V1 golf balls infringed the nine asserted claims, and the case proceeded to trial on the sole issue of validity. On December 14, 2007, a jury found that eight of the nine patent claims asserted by the Company against Acushnet were valid, holding one claim invalid. The District Court entered judgment in favor of the Company and against Acushnet on December 20, 2007. On November 10, 2008, the District Court entered an order, effective January 1, 2009, permanently enjoining Acushnet from further infringing those patent claims, while at the same time denying Acushnet’s motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law. Acushnet appealed the District Court’s judgment to the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 2009-1076). On August 14, 2009, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the case for a new trial. The Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court’s rulings with respect to claim construction, and evidentiary rulings made during the trial and rejected Acushnet’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, but ruled that the jury’s inconsistent verdicts and an error granting partial summary judgment on Acushnet’s anticipation defense required the case against Acushnet to be retried. As a result of its ruling, the Federal Circuit also vacated the permanent injunction. Acushnet filed a petition for review by the United States Supreme Court which was denied on February 22, 2010. The case was retried based upon Callaway Golf’s asserted claims. On March 29, 2010, after a five-day trial, a jury found that the asserted claims were invalid as “anticipated” and “obvious.” Callaway Golf has moved for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law. Callaway Golf’s motion was fully briefed on June 15, 2010 and is pending for a decision in the district court.

Although it isn't the most exciting reading, going through the details in the whole 10-k filing has a lot of interesting info on the business.   One thing I also learned is that Callaway is pretty much shuttering the golf ball manufacturing in the US and is moving all of that manufacturing to Mexico.


Note: This thread is 5349 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • I'm not sure you're calculating the number of strokes you would need to give correctly. The way I figure it, a 6.9 index golfer playing from tees that are rated 70.8/126 would have a course handicap of 6. A 20-index golfer playing from tees that are rated 64/106 would have a course handicap of 11. Therefore, based on the example above, assuming this is the same golf course and these index & slope numbers are based on the different tees, you should only have to give 5 strokes (or one stroke on the five most difficult holes if match play) not 6. Regardless, I get your point...the average golfer has no understanding of how the system works and trying to explain it to people, who haven't bothered to read the documentation provided by either the USGA or the R&A, is hopeless. In any case, I think the WHS as it currently is, does the best job possible of leveling the playing field and I think most golfers (obviously, based on the back & forth on this thread, not all golfers) at least comprehend that.   
    • Day 115 12-5 Skills work tonight. Mostly just trying to be more aware of the shaft and where it's at. Hit foam golf balls. 
    • Day 25 (5 Dec 25) - total rain day, worked on tempo and distance control.  
    • Yes it's true in a large sample like a tournament a bunch of 20 handicaps shouldn't get 13 strokes more than you. One of them will have a day and win. But two on one, the 7 handicap is going to cover those 13 strokes the vast majority of the time. 20 handicaps are shit players. With super high variance and a very asymmetrical distribution of scores. Yes they shoot 85 every once in a while. But they shoot 110 way more often. A 7 handicap's equivalent is shooting 74 every once in a while but... 86 way more often?
    • Hi Jack.  Welcome to The Sand Trap forum.   We're glad you've joined.   There is plenty of information here.   Enjoy!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.