Question:
You need to consider the capacity to make wound balls. If the wound and non-wound machines are booked to make the existing balls, you have to spend money to expand. It looks like they might have dropped Eclipse to get the production to make Pro V1. — Ball Marks: Fix yours and one more
Yup. Titleist already has the ball-winding machines. It wouldn’t have entered into their decision for launching the Pro V1.
<snip
Response:
You do have to admit that it is a strange coincidence that Tiger won three out of four majors in one year immediately after switching to the Nike ball. Matt
Response:
Maybe. The Tour Accuracy is a very good ball, but it is not durable at all, and as you could see several times at the Buick, it spins a bit too much for my taste. That 8-iron at 18 could have been a tap-in without all that spin. However, the trade off, and why the ball is so good, is the green side control and feel. It’s a really good putting ball.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You do have to admit that it is a strange coincidence that Tiger won three out of four majors in one year immediately after switching to the Nike ball. Matt
Response:
Using their logic, Tiger was better off with the Wound ball and that maybe their non-wound ball is not as good as Titleist (since Love and Mickleson are playing better). Wouldn’t it be hilarious if Tiger wanted to change back to a Titleist 
Andy – no I do not think it is the ball
No argument from me. But … IMO you’re comparing apples to oranges: A few early season tournaments v. the entire last year.
Response:
Has anyone seen the 2-page Nike ad for the Tour Accuracy and the end of the Wound Ball? Their premise is that wound ball is dead and it is shown by Tiger Woods having his game improved by the non-wound ball. To prove this they site: Scoring Average: 272.52 before to 270.12 after Driving: 288.9 before and 306.4 after Birdie Avg: 4.72 before and 5.19 after Putting Rank: 33rd before and 1st after So now considering this year he is: Scoring 280.28 Driving 286 yards Birdies 4.83 Putting #129 So I ask Nike (I would like their email address, but could only find a form on their site) the following: o Was last year’s performance due to Tiger’s ball? o If yes, then what happened to the Tour Accuracy to cause the decline of Tiger to levels that are mostly worse than with the ancient wound ball? o If no, then why is your deceptive advertising worded the way that it is? "Now if it could improve his game imagine what it could do for someone with "more room for improvement"." Looks like your advertising is a load of crap. I do not expect anyone from Nike to have the balls to answer this on this forum, because they look kind of bad. I just found it very funny that they took such a strong stance while at the same time, opening themselves up for a lot of criticism. Using their logic, Tiger was better off with the Wound ball and that maybe their non-wound ball is not as good as Titleist (since Love and Mickleson are playing better). Wouldn’t it be hilarious if Tiger wanted to change back to a Titleist Andy – no I do not think it is the ball
Response:
Has anyone seen the 2-page Nike ad for the Tour Accuracy and the end of the Wound Ball? Their premise is that wound ball is dead and it is shown by Tiger Woods having his game improved by the non-wound ball. To prove this they site: Scoring Average: 272.52 before to 270.12 after Driving: 288.9 before and 306.4 after Birdie Avg: 4.72 before and 5.19 after Putting Rank: 33rd before and 1st after So now considering this year he is: Scoring 280.28 Driving 286 yards Birdies 4.83 Putting #129 So I ask Nike (I would like their email address, but could only find a form on their site) the following: o Was last year’s performance due to Tiger’s ball? o If yes, then what happened to the Tour Accuracy to cause the decline of Tiger to levels that are mostly worse than with the ancient wound ball? o If no, then why is your deceptive advertising worded the way that it is? "Now if it could improve his game imagine what it could do for someone with "more room for improvement"." Looks like your advertising is a load of crap. I do not expect anyone from Nike to have the balls to answer this on this forum, because they look kind of bad. I just found it very funny that they took such a strong stance while at the same time, opening themselves up for a lot of criticism. Using their logic, Tiger was better off with the Wound ball and that maybe their non-wound ball is not as good as Titleist (since Love and Mickleson are playing better). Wouldn’t it be hilarious if Tiger wanted to change back to a Titleist Andy – no I do not think it is the ball Andy: betcha they just let the viewer go to the false conclusion without actually stating it themselves overtly. On a bell curve of intelligence, your response to the ad represents maybe 2% of the population buying golf balls. Most people will not apply the good sense to the stats that you have done here. Their half attention will in most cases amount to a tacit leap to the implications you bring out. So if they end up "convincing" 98% of their viewers and do NOT convince 2% (or whatever that extremely small minority actually does amount to percentage wise) they have accomplished their goal. There are those who, like George Orwell, have indicated that perception IS reality; and that if we can manipulate perception we have GOT ‘EM! There is hardly a historical event that is NOT laced with deception one way or another, actually, when you get down to it – and where monumental after-effects linger for hundreds of years or more as a result OF someone’s trickery. It all started, I think, with a snake and a lady named ‘Eve’- and the lie was "IT VOONT HOIT CHA!" The subtlety of the difference between fair and true representation vs. the use or manipulation by innuendo (someone referred to Machiavelli here a couple days ago) is extremely acute. They are close in their appearance; it is only at a deeper level that the cancer is detectable. Now don’t we all know how the advertising business in the good ole USofA would NEVER stoop low enough to manipulate the public! Again, there is fair and there is manipulation. But one of the subtleties about the differenece is that the viewer is the one who puts himself in harms way BY his leap when it really is NOT warranted. So the advertiser remains "innocent". A philosophy of some people is "If you are stupid enough to be vulnerable to be taken advantage of, it is my MORAL OBLIGATION TO DO SO.!" It does seem to be fairly prevalent — well nigh universal. When advertising DOES, however, show more respect for the viewer (as is increasingly the case), there is a WHOLE different tone and ethos effected BY that evident respect, and I do believe that eventually such advertising will pay off the most for the advertiser as compared to the sleaze approach. George
Response:
Why? I’m sure that the marginal cost of manufacturing a wound ball is about $0.04 while maybe for a solid core ball it’s $0.03. The rest goes for advertising, endorsements, and pocket lining.
you’re probably pretty much right about all of the above, Joseph, but I don’t know of any company – all other things being equal – which wouldn’t love to reduce its manufacturing costs by 25% ! :) May your next round be your best round. Dave Holo RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/holod.htm
Response:
It is all marketing mule dust until somebody does some sort of double blind test. Solid or non-wound balls are easier to manufacture than wound balls. The solid guys will be claiming goodness and light as long they are exclusively non-wound. It would be interesting to see how much the manufacturing costs played in the Titleist Pro V1 decision. — Ball Marks: Fix yours and one more
Response:
It would be interesting to see how much the manufacturing costs played in the Titleist Pro V1 decision.
Why? I’m sure that the marginal cost of manufacturing a wound ball is about $0.04 while maybe for a solid core ball it’s $0.03. The rest goes for advertising, endorsements, and pocket lining. -joseph