Wally Uihlein Shifts To The Get-Off-My-Lawn Phase Of His Career: USGA Has No Evidence Of Escalating Costs

In a letter to the editor, Acushnet CEO Wally Uihlein railed against the USGA claims of cost increases in golf due to distance advances. Be careful what you wish for Wally!

Dylan Dethier at Golf.com reports on the response to Brian Costa's story Saturday.

"Is there any evidence to support this canard…the trickle down cost argument?” Uihlein wrote. “Where is the evidence to support the argument that golf course operating costs nationwide are being escalated due to advances in equipment technology?"

Let's see, off the top of my head there are studies underway on multiple fronts, golf course operators who can point to increased insurance costs due to safety issues and the simple common sense wave realizing the absurdity of an expanding footprint.

"The only people that seem to be grappling with advances in technology and physical fitness are the short-sighted golf course developers and the supporting golf course architectural community who built too many golf courses where the notion of a 'championship golf course' was brought on line primarily to sell real estate," he wrote.

Easy there Wally, short-sighted developers sell golf balls too.

And his jab at Bridgestone did not note the irony of his letter's intent, which would be a similar commercial motive, no?

"Given Bridgestone’s very small worldwide market share and paltry presence in professional golf, it would seem logical they would have a commercial motive making the case for a reduced distance golf ball," Uihlein wrote.

BTW watched this the other night and really is a special film. Warning, bad language! Racially insensitive comments!

Update on Monday, November 20, 2017 at 09:13 PM by Geoff

**Thanks to reader JB for Brian Costa's follow up on Uihlein's reply, which ran under a headline titled, "Titleist CEO Blasts Push for Reduced-Distance Golf Ball" and subheadline, "Wally Uihlein issues forceful rebuttal against USGA plan to explore creating different sets of ball regulations for different players."

Comments

[ol Harv]

"technology and physical fitness "

There you go KLG, Wally's with you on all those long hitting fit youngsters.

[George P Burdell]

"...increased insurance costs due to safety issues..."

Safety issues? Huh?

" Ball go Far " is a bigger safety risk?

Say what?

[FC]

Pretty lawns cost money. Old Dirty Harry got it right.

[Booyahs]

I would like to see these studies you speak of Geoff. And it would also be cool to see who is footing the bill for these studies.

[Geoff]

Booyahs,
The USGA and University of Minnesota are conducting several. You can Google around and read more. There are also some between the USGA and R&A that have been ongoing. The bills are largely covered by the governing bodies, though I don't know how the Minnesota program funding is working.

George,
Yes, golf courses with homes along the sides have seen increased issues with safety, as well as tees an architect designed to be out of reach from another tee that would now be in reach.

[Booyahs]

Well. I guess it does take a bunch of brainiacs to figure out how longer distances of tour player drives increases the cost of golf. I believe 2 piece Top Flights from the 90’s went farther than Pro V’s today. The difference is that the Tour Balls today can offer almost the same distance as 2 piece distance balls and are able to react on the greens far better than traditional 2 piece balls.
You know what would be fun to watch? Seeing the tour players play tournaments with distance balls. I’m sure the scores will go up because of the loss in short game control. But then they would still hit it further by a couple of yards. If scores are higher, would distance still be ruining golf?

[JS]

Is Wally for real with these comments? Is doesn’t take much of brain to figure out that added length to courses costs money & that 7500 yard courses cost more to maintain than 6800 yd courses. He’s grossly out of touch with reality.

[V60]

I have been reading this crap here for years and never do the real estate developers and course architects take any responsibility for the increased costs of building a 7200 yard golf course where 90% of their customers can’t hit it past 250 off the tee. Wally is right and I hate Titleist as a brand. Why can’t the Tom Fazios build great short holes? Because the most is of you are suck ups to the money or have little talent and build the same stupid hole year after year. On the other hand, you have the USGA ruining the US Open every single year with their dumb idea of protecting par. Idiocy includes greens so fast that a ball rolls by itself! And this doesn’t put pressure on golf courses to speed up their greens? Increasing costs! Or how about that crap just costs more today! You old farts forget about that. Lol. What the golf world should focus on is the issue of immigration, because if Trumpy has his way all that cheap labor for maintence goes bye bye. Have fun getting a bunch of white boys to cut your grass, lol. Design better short holes, build more short 9 hole corses to get kids to play, leave the ball alone it ain’t the problem you are.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

JS, how many people are building 7500 yard courses? Very, very few. Pretending that every or even many courses are expanding when 6300 yards is plenty for most golfers is a farce.

Geoff, the first University of Minnesota study was a joke. Booyahs has it right so far here.

[hh morant]

Geoff,

Believe that one of your posts a number of years ago highlighted that Acushnet had sought patent for a reduced distance ball, appropriately named "R.I.P. Distance"

Wally, mustn't have been on leave that week.

[Beef]

If the USGA and U-of-MN are opposing counsel my money is on Wally all day every day and twice on Sunday. No way they deliver facts to support the canard.

[P Thomas]

I spend all my money...need someone to make laws preventing that...I know, take money from the wealthy and spread it around
I eat too much....make chocolate illegal
Somehow got cancer from smoking....why didn't anyone tell or stop me.

Dustin Johnson just hit a 390 yard drive on a fairway that stumps faster than our greens....we have to build new tees to be ready for that!!
Those tour guys and Titleist are ruining our course!

[Easingwold]

Booyahs- agree about the 90's distance two piece. All the pro v is now is that with balata feel. Difference now is drivers have 46 inch shafts instead of the persimmon 43 inch used in the early 90's by Faldo and Langer.

[Booyahs]

I believe most off the rack drivers now are over 45”. But most male tour pros play 45”. And many play 44.5” for control. DJ plays a longer driver, but the dude is 6’3”. A lot of these guys’ three woods (43”) can go over 300 yards. There are so many variables contributing to tour driving distances. But the ball continues to be the whipping boy.

[D. maculata]

Technically the ball wouldn't be that much of an issue today had the governing bodies not been asleep at the wheel regarding COR. Once manufacturers were allowed two bites of the apple, nothing was stopping them. Shaft length was just the next logical progression after weight and spin issues were solved. Scientists are smart. And they get really smart when marketing gives them the resources to win the race to the bank. Our guardians of the game, with the authority to control distance, didn't find their noble streak until the cash reservoir started to transform to a pond. And guys like Wally will fight for what water is left to drink.

Don't be so quick in praise baseball. While it's true they addressed the COR bite of the apple via the wood bat, they still screw with the ball; Exhibit A the season HR total record smashed to bits in 2017. Players didn't suddenly "get fit" from the year before. Sales aren't driven by how many fly balls are caught on the track. Golf is overdue for its Kenesaw Mountain Landis moment. The Tours and manufacturers would have to agree to it as MLB owners reluctantly did to save its image, ironically in the case of golf, an image intentionally created. It's naive to believe the governing bodies view the distance issue as the main cause of collateral damage to the business of golf when so many other reasons have been posited for its demise. Get ready for a lot of lip service and half measures before any decisive correction takes place.

[Say what?]

Actually ,the cure for those with enormous clubhead speed is to reduce the COR on drivers. Require the face to be thin enough that at 120+ MPH the face cracks! The added bonus is a little more trampoline effect for average golfers so they can hit it a little farther. Problem solved! By the way, virtually all the distance gains in the last 15 years can be attributed to increased clubhead speed.( check the clubhead speeds as measured on tour with shot link and Trackman) I'm not smart, but I don't think the ball makes the clubbed go faster!

[Long Ball]

Wally is F.O.S......this is all about protecting his residual stake in Titleist and little else. That said, The USGA has brought this down on itself.Calling it asleep at the wheel is an understatement. Pretentious negligence is more like it.

[Jupiter]

Time for a tour ball. Wouldn't that put all of this to bed? Let me play whatever ball I want to but if you want to play in a sanctioned tour event you need to play a ball that meets that tour's standards... whatever they may be. If you don't like the tour's rules go find another tour to make your living on.

Aren't most of us faced with rules in the workplace, not to mention life in general, that we disagree with. If we don't like the rules we go find another place to make our living. Seems like common sense to me. Someone needs to grow some balls, no pun intended, and make a decision.

[Marmooskapaul]

@Jupiter...

Bingo!!! Except let all the architects...golf insiders and golf pro's who don't like the modern equipment start their own tour. Adopt their own balls and equipment specs and lure pro's to this NEW pro tour.

Problem solved...lol..jk.

[OldTimer]

If one wishes to reduce the performance of golf equipment, then I suggest 2 simple equipment rule changes. Return to the way golf was played when it began: No dimples on balls and no grooves on clubs. the "smoothest" of all solutions!

[George P Burdell]

Geoff. sorry not buying the increased safety risk. Think it is an excuse for Insurance companies to raise premiums. If golf went to the Cayman ball, there is no way insurance premiums would go down.

And really Geoff....telling someone to go "google around" ? You are making the claims, it really not up to the readers to verify your sources. Its up to you to provide the sources so we can see the context of the studies nto make sure you are not taking things out of context.

[BDF]

@ Chico has advocated on this site for a ball that spins more - I think he is right. Forget the roll back - although I think it is necessary, I doubt it is attainable. Leave the distances the same, but make it so that a slice will acually slice, or a hook will hook. If a player wants to swing all out, there are consequences if the hit is not perfect. Maybe less stability is the answer...

[Manku]

The driver head size is not the issue...we'll still have guys hitting 300 yard three woods (think Justin Thomas second shot into 18 at the us open), and 230 yard 5 irons.

I still remember Cabrera playing 10 at ANC with a 5 iron/6 iron...on a 500 yard par 4 and realizing that their game has absolutely zero in common with the average golfer.

[ElChapin]

@GeorgePBurdell please stop using this name if you are going to make stupid arguments. Most of us Tech grads are smart enough to understand that a ball flying longer distances is able to reach places that a shorter distance ball was not intended to reach.

[Texaswedge]

Don't worry Manku, they're not going to take your 460cc .830 COR canned ham driver or your Pro V1x from you. You'll still be able to go out and feel good about yourself and you can go in the bar after your round and tell everybody about your 350 yard drive on your way to making 3 on the 15th in your "hit and giggle" match. Nobody wants to take that away from you.
No, your right. The driver head size is not the issue. Keep telling yourself that...maybe you'll even start believing that someday.

[George P Burdell]

@elchapin aka faux moderator. I will do me, and you can do you.

[FC]

Regarding safety, it peeves me that people want to buy homes on golf courses, then want to regulate play. I played one course this year that had "Irons Only" signs displayed on a par 4 tee.

[ElChapin]

@GeorgePBurdell, you can do whatever you want with another handle. If you insist on using this one I can criticize any comment I disagree with as I am also GeorgePBurdell

[Long Knocker]

Don't buy the increased insurance cost aspect of this argument. It has been litigated in numerous jurisdictions that their is an implied waiver of liability when someone chooses to live on a golf hole. I'd like to see the rider(s) on the policies that name that risk specifically and how much of a cost increase it causes. Of all the ball distance arguments this is the weakest.

[Long Knocker]

Don't buy the increased insurance cost aspect of this argument. It has been litigated in numerous jurisdictions that their is an implied waiver of liability when someone chooses to live on a golf hole. I'd like to see the rider(s) on the policies that name that risk specifically and how much of a cost increase it causes. Of all the ball distance arguments this is the weakest.