The only thing I’m disappointed about is how much he seems to care about the equipment companies being happy and how important they are to the “enjoyment” of the game for fans. Frankly that’s a complete falsehood, if anything we have too many companies making the same product and golf would not be any worse if we removed a few of them. The amount of clubs that go unsold every year or get returned is proof they could downsize.
I think the reasoning behind his statement is that they give money to the ecosystem that allows the usga to prosper. And without the equipment companies funding everything the usga would be worse off. I don’t buy the equipment companies are important “to the fans” as much as they’re important to the balance sheets. Maybe that’s what he means but can’t outright say it.
He also blew past the criticism of NBC and the US Open broadcast by taking about the lead in programming in the weeks before.
…what? Who cares? Does anyone remember the super bowl pregame show? The post-game show? No we remember the actual event.
Exactly right. As well as the negative comparison to Tennis meaning there haven’t been any innovations. Sports don’t need equipment innovations. I found that super frustrating. He also seemed to hand wave and dismiss the television complaints. Same old same old in spite of all the direct statements to the contrary that he is a challenger to the status quo. Doesn’t seem that way.
Yeah he wouldn’t have been hired if he was going to make dramatic changes, him fluffing the new-looking usga board is all lip service to his new bosses. This isn’t the lpga commissioner who has power and leeway. This position is too much money to be lost for people in charge to risk.
I was hoping Mike was going to be the whan who can wave his magic whand and fix some of golf’s problems, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. The TV coverage whandow is a problem and it looks like it will continue. Podcasts like this just leave me whanting more from our golf leaders. I’m left to whander "is this it?. Maybe there isn’t a simple solution to everything and until then I will keep whandering in and out of this message board looking for answers.
Good points here. The equipment companies are important because they are so financially ingrained in the sport that it would be nearly impossible to completely dismiss them. I’m actually not disappointed by Whan’s statements; I’m encouraged.
I think we underestimate how important innovation actually is to the game of golf. Has it gone too far? Probably. But, think of how much time, money, and energy golfers spend on their equipment. It’s a huge part of the game that can’t be ignored. I’d be MORE concerned if Whan had completely ignored that fact.
A huge part of Whan’s success at every position he’s held is that he clearly understands his customer and key stakeholders. I don’t think that can (or should) change while he is at the USGA. It he can somehow make rule changes that get some level of buy-in from equipment companies, it would be a huge win long term.
I feel like it’s not an innovation problem for the companies though, it’s marketing. Those engineers Whan talks about? They’d probably love the challenge of designing new equipment from scratch with new regulations. Think about their job now, they literally invent new problems to try and solve or come up with some minor tweak that is not fundamentally any different. They basically cut and paste the previous design and ask what can we change so that marketing can call it different? Mizuno irons literally have released “tech” in their irons that they then remove later. The jpx 919 irons had a cg they marketed was “better” but it turns out the pros hated it and in 921 it went back to the 900 design. Vokey does the same crap with their wedges. It’s gotta be so boring for people with advanced degrees who want to be intellectually challenged rather than driven by new for the sake of new. It’s a car manufacturer mindset except clubs don’t have mileage the same way.
On the other hand marketing and advertising get to make up whatever they feel like that day and have free reigns over the trajectory of the company.
This is low handicap privilege.
They haven’t even been able to make one club that will keep my ball in the fairway. How about they do that first and then get bored?
I disagree here. Innovation is greatly important to the companies selling the latest and greatest driver. I do not think it’s important to the game itself. The amateur game the pro game would not skip a beat with say a 360cc driver max and a ball that travels 10-20% less. I do not believe anyone spends 4 hours on a regular basis just because they’re playing a new driver or can hit it 270 instead of 250. On the pro side it would be way more interesting watching them hit 4 5 or 6 irons into par 4s instead of wedges. Watched the women this weekend and that made it so much more enjoyable. The game caters to the financial interests and that is not necessarily good for the long term health and well being of the game itself.
As an engineer that works for an automotive company, I can tell you that the single most stifling factor for new innovation is any type of regulation or perceived regulation (i.e. IIHS safety ratings or NHTSA). It’s almost never marketing or sales or consumer interest. Yes, regulatory certainly drives design changes, but that is completely different than innovation.
If what you are saying about “inventing new problems” or “minor tweak” is true…then where does the problem with distance come from? You mentioned some examples of failed tech, but the fact remains that the clubs and ball we have today are vastly superior from technology in the past. Trust me, that’s been fun for the engineers that worked on it.
Also if we want to make comparisons to other sports : Formula 1 has certain regulations and technical innovations that are meant to filter down to road cars. If equipment companies wanted to innovate professional equipment and then have it taper down to amateur equipment that would be great. That’s how fashion works too, see Meryl ripping Anne Hathaway a new one.
But again, marketing would have to figure out how to make money and they refuse to do that.
In my opinion it’s that athletes have finally caught up to golf and now humans who are powerful are golfers. But the equipment is rated for us weak hobbyists. I always go back to baseball bats as an example, yes it’s safety but it’s also because those baseball players would demolish balls with metal bats instead of wood bats.
There’s no reason to say “okay these athletes are good enough to not need equipment meant for weaklings.”
Mike Whan completely doesn’t address any of these points on the podcast and I can only assume it’s because the equipment companies refuse to budge. Not from an innovation or engineering perspective but from the people who run the company. Harry Arnett was key to Callaway but it was 100% marketing he focused on. Same as what he’s trying to do with his cheap clothing company now. These people need a way to sell product and in golf that is 100% appealing to people’s desire to be tiger woods or Mark whalberg.
COMPLETELY agree with you. To be clear: I’m pro-regulation to a certain extent.
My original point was that it is foolish to ignore the fact that equipment companies have a huge impact on the business & the game. And it seems Whan isn’t doing that, which I think is a good thing. My opinion: USGA needs to come up with regulations that make the most sense for the game with all factors considered, including equipment companies.
I wish Soly asked Whan does the USGA need to think about or feel any responsibility for the financial health of equipment companies. Yes they add to the ecosystem of golf but does it need to be part of USGA’s actual responsibility? From my understanding the USGA does not represent the business of golf manufacturing, just courses, clubs, and playing organizations.
Obviously at some level, they do have to care about equipment manufacturers. If golf equipment manufacturing, hypothetically, became an unprofitable business that drove away all the manufacturers, golf would eventually die. No equipment, no sport.
Of course but if it becomes unsustainable leaving only one or just two companies (say Taylormade and Callaway) does that really affect USGA’s mission? I doubt they all go out of business but downsizing isn’t going to ruin golf.
Every year the following companies release a new driver, irons, etc: Taylormade, Titleist, Callaway, Ping, Mizuno, Cobra, and then we have others like Srixon, Wilson, PXG, etc who still release equipment frequently but maybe not every year.
My background is in motorsports, so this is the approach I gravitate towards. USGA/R&A certainly have to develop additional regulations on distance for the variety of reasons discussed in the podcast. But, the regulations cannot be so strict as to completely limit innovative approaches. Whether we want to admit it or not, innovation is great for sport. The FIA makes soooo many changes to regulatory, but there is still enough wiggle room for engineers to create innovative designs. It’s not so regulated that everyone drives the same damn car.
