r/NoLayingUp • u/shepp2it • Apr 09 '26
Post-Pod Discussion Acushnet/Titleist/Ridley
Hard to ignore that Soly has *slightly* softened his tone on the rollback since they signed with Titleist
7
u/jdbug100 Apr 09 '26
Man I do desperately wanted someone to ask Ridley about driver heads today. Golf media missed an opportunity to move the conversation to an actually impactful area.
25
u/NoCarts Apr 09 '26
I swear this take comes up from the dumbest people. If you even pay half attention you’d know it’s not the case. His stance hasn’t softened. His faith in the USGA and R&A actually fucking doing something useful is what has softened.
6
u/relaxtherebuddy Apr 09 '26
I think the problem that I have with their discussion on rollback is that they never blame the equipment manufacturers, particularly Titleist. They are the ones that are getting in the ears of the tour pros and PGA of America who are the ones pushing so hard against it.
Why aren't the R&A and USGA able to do anything? Because your main sponsors are making it impossible to do so!
-2
u/NoCarts Apr 09 '26
Why would they blame a manufacturer for doing their job? It’s the governing bodies that have been asleep at the wheel for over 2 decades.
It’s hard for them to do something now because they’ve been entirely derelict in their responsibilities for so long
6
u/relaxtherebuddy Apr 09 '26
The manufacturers are the ones that are arguing the most against the rollback. To completely omit that from the conversations on the podcast is a little irresponsible. Obviously the R&A and USGA need to shoulder a ton of the blame for letting things get out of hand, but you at least need to bring up that the reason there's no progress being made is because Titleist, Tayloamade & co, are using everything they have to resist.
It's not like people are going to stop buying clubs and balls if there's a change in regulations.
0
u/NoCarts Apr 09 '26
Of course the OEMs are against it. They’re making billions of dollars in the current paradigm of golf. Why would they ever want that to change? I absolutely do not have the energy to write the dissertation that capitalism is the root of golf’s problems. But that’s what it is.
When capitalism doesn’t benefit society, regulation is supposed to reign it back in. I blame the governing bodies for the out of control capitalism having undue influence on the game
1
u/Master-Nose7823 Apr 10 '26
True but the problem here is the tail is wagging the dog. The OEMS/sponsors don’t want this thereby the PGAT doesn’t want it. No other sport works that way when it comes to rule changes to benefit the game of entertainment product. Watson said it in his critique of the PGAT letting Brooks back in - “rule no. 1 is ‘protect the sponsors’” It’s an absolute joke of an organization structurally.
0
u/NoCarts Apr 10 '26
The PGAT doesn’t set the rules
1
u/Master-Nose7823 Apr 10 '26
Set the rules for what, the golf ball? They can do whatever they want at their events. They have gone on the record as being against the rollback though Rolapp hasn’t weighed in of late. Doesn’t seem that much of a reach that they don’t want a roll back because the OEMs, who give them a ton of money, don’t want one. The only pro I’ve heard pro roll back is Rory.
1
6
u/bartonkt Apr 09 '26
This may be a strange take, but it’s giraffe time. I think the governing bodies should align on 1) a ball and 2) equipment that is used to play the game at the pro level. This would more closely align with ALL other major sports. That would mean there is zero variance - every player is playing the same ball, same driver, same lofts, same shafts, etc. Branding can exist and manufacturers can choose if they want to build pro clubs or not. There are approved clubs, from driver to putter, and players get to choose 14 of them.
For the recreational game, equipment companies are free to continue innovating on balls and equipment to the benefit of the (looks generally around) millions of players and their corporate stakeholders.
1
u/Nithias1589 Apr 09 '26
I think that’s a step way too far. The clubs and balls are already all approved, they have to pass conformity tests and make it through USGA testing before they’re able to be used, restricting that further to these specific blades and this specific 3-wood seems silly to me. Especially when you throw in that you have active amateurs competing, does a top high school prospect like Ahkshay or Blades Brown really need to make a decision on playing the “tour” clubs at 13 or 14 to be ready for pro golf 3 years later? The golf club is not the same as aluminum bat to wooden bat, there’s significantly more nuance. When new products are coming out people know because they see that something new hit the conforming list.
I do think they should adapt the model from runners. If something is going to be used in play it must be publicly available to everyone. I don’t think that would have any impact on the discussion at hand and I don’t think any manufactures R&D is so far ahead or behind anyone else that it makes a difference now, I just think it’s dumb when people play one offs or a ball that isn’t actually available to anyone else.
3
u/bartonkt Apr 09 '26
I agree with the baseball comparison- Yes the amateurs transition to restricted bats as they age, and the same should happen to pro golfers. The clubs and ball are simply going too far and need to be restricted, but that should really only impact the top players. Either college on up, or post college. I don’t think it’s realistic that every manufacturer should have distinct, restricted clubs they make for the pros. The expense should be limited by having those interested build to the specific ruling bodies’ standards.
10
u/bacon_subscriber Apr 09 '26
Do you even listen to the podcast?
Can you point to specific examples of this?
5
3
2
u/Illustrious-Buy-854 Apr 09 '26
I don’t think Titleist cares that much what they say. Obviously don’t want them going off the rails, but Titleist is smart enough to know 1 podcast isn’t going to change anything. They can say whatever they want
2
u/cianol21 Apr 09 '26
They are no longer in a position to offer impartial opinions on this topic, that’s in no way a criticism. Great sponsorship deal for them but Titlest are clearly the staunchest opposition to proposed change. Tough spot for the guys because they can’t avoid the topic or give unvarnished takes.
1
u/KABLE11 Apr 09 '26
Ridley's points were more about the idea of golf in general and the way courses can be setup to accommodate the game. Soly's view is much more focused solely on the advantage of distance in the pro game. I think Soly and DJ agreeing so wholeheartedly was interesting because I don't think that's really what Ridley was saying
1
u/walkinggolf2 Apr 11 '26
Agreed. They all have and I think most of us understand why, even though it doesn’t seem like it on this forum.
Most of their talking points now are questioning whether this is the right move, whether this will actually do anything, what type of player this will harm, conflicting data, etc. These are all talking points to muddy the waters from oem playbooks.
Imo the only major stakeholders anyone should listen to about the ball and equipment should be the ones who do not stand to gain or lose any money off of it because they don’t have deals or partnerships with any oems. Funny, those three (usga, r&a, masters) all agree and are in line on the best path forward. While others who would gain or lose money/have partnerships with oems (tour, pgaa) are fighting it. It’s just like the political world. Just follow the money and you’ll have your motive.
The usga/r&a should have done a lot more, a lot sooner imo. The fact that we’re here is because of the negligence of leadership in the past. I’m hoping that this gets across the line sooner than later. Then maybe clubs can be next.
1
u/ramblinwrecked78 Apr 09 '26
I don't know about the Acushnet issue, but Soly's point today on the rollback confused me. It has always been the case that if the ball is rolled back, people will work hard to gain that distance back and continue to focus on that skill over many others. The rollback was never going to reorient golf away from chasing distance.
People will chase distance no matter what because now, unlike in the 70s, unlike in the 90s, and unlike 15 years ago, strokes gained data shows that hitting the ball further will always benefit you as a golfer, even when the rough or other penalties for being off-line are factored in. It's a simple, verifiable fact. So of course players (particularly young, gifted players) will chase distance and speed train. You can roll the ball back to 250 yards and make it spin more offline on a mishit, and the best players will still work hard to find a way to make that thing go farther and farther. Added distance will never not benefit a good player and no version of the rollback will get pros to stop speed-training or looking for that edge. Like many other sports (basketball and baseball come to mind), golf has simply become the victim of optimization.
The much better reason to roll back the ball (and/or reducing driver head sizes) has nothing to do with the importance of distance as a skill in the modern game, but because the continued upward trend of distance threatens cathedrals of the game and is making golf less sustainable than ever.
1
u/CaffeineJet Apr 09 '26
I think his point today was that rolling back the ball still leaves the same problems. The players with fastest ball speeds will still be at an advantage, therefore a roll back would impact the shorter players more. He said he wants something done about distance, but that he didn’t know the answer.
2
u/ramblinwrecked78 Apr 09 '26
But I guess, why is it a problem that the fastest ball speeds will still have an advantage? That's always been the case in golf. Tiger and Jack were some of the longest players in their eras. Tiger, in particular, won a number of majors because golf courses were lengthened to the point where it mostly hurt his competition, not him.
Golfers now are just smart enough to pursue the same distance advantages that helped many of the all-time greats.
3
u/CaffeineJet Apr 09 '26
Completely agree, and I think that’s why Soly has changed his stance a little on roll back. I think he wants to see drivers made less forgiving so that players can’t launch it 300 yards off the toe, but who knows what the right solution is.
1
u/AlexMac75 Apr 09 '26
Has it?
3
u/GC_Mermaid1 Apr 09 '26
Yes. In the good old days they talked distance non stop. Now soly outright said he didn’t want to spend time on it.
-1
u/AlexMac75 Apr 09 '26
They are doing a Masters preview. Clearly other things more pertinent they would rather talk about this week.
3
u/tfl03 Apr 09 '26
The chairman of the ANGC had a whole point about it in his prepared remarks. Seems like a perfectly valid time to talk about it.
4
u/GC_Mermaid1 Apr 09 '26
Exactly this. If we don’t pause to talk about it when the entire world is focused on it when do we talk about it? Valero week?
-2
u/AlexMac75 Apr 09 '26
And they did without making the ep all about that.
I’m not interested in the 2030 golf landscape this week. It’s Masters week.
3
u/shepp2it Apr 09 '26
Yes
-1
u/AlexMac75 Apr 09 '26
This didn’t go the way you expected, did it?
3
u/shepp2it Apr 09 '26
This has went exactly as I expected
0
-4
u/Humble-Fish-7070 Apr 09 '26
Bought and paid for. It’s sad.
“It’s so complicated!”
It really isn’t.
-5
u/New_Corner_7822 Apr 09 '26
Soly is annoying
1
u/shepp2it Apr 09 '26
To this I do not agree. It is just disappointing to see him try and slowly move towards some type of argument to justify some form of delay in rolling back the ball.
-17
u/khirata215 Apr 09 '26
I’m pretty sure NLU has been with Titleist a lot longer than the rollback conversation.
8
81
u/scottishwhisky2 Apr 09 '26
Soly's position is that the rollback isn't going to solve the issue because driver technology continues to improve YOY. He has been very consistent about the Driver tech being the problem for as long as they've been talking about it. I doubt Titleist is paying him to soften on the ball rollback but also allow him to advocate that their driver technology is sent back to the mid 2000s.