Hacker News Reader

Comment by finaliteration | Hacker News Reader

Ironically, anti-competitive moves like this are only going to accelerate the game of golf's steady decline[0]. I get needing to protect your market as a large player, but when you are the main player and your product is too expensive to buy and the perception is growing that the sport you specialize in is a waste of time and money, what good does it do to push out someone making a cheaper product that may allow beginning players with smaller budgets to enter the game?

[0]http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/the-death-of-golf-201506...

View on HN

Ehh, you can get perfectly serviceable balls for even cheaper than the costco ball.

I bought 10 dozen Top Flite Gamer balls as my winter ball (you tend to lose more balls in the winter due to plugging into the ground, taller rough, etc.) for $9.99/dozen on Christmas sale. I play $48/dozen balls regularly as well, but I'm perfectly content playing the $1 ball.

MSRP-wise, Pinnacle balls have been a perfectly fine ball for beginner to intermediate golfers for decades. (I used to be an advanced level player but dropped the game for a decade, and when I picked it up again I opted to use a Pinnacle ball for a few years for the roi)

The reason the Costco ball is alarming to the premium ball manufacturers isn't because a cheap good ball exists now (they always have existed), but because a cheap great ball (i.e. tour pro level) threatened to destroy their margins. Basically, it would destroy the "money buys you performance" marketing mystique (even though for 99% of players, they don't get the clubface/ball contact to get that performance out of the ball anyways).

Also you can get really good equipment for quite cheap on ebay. It's not like technology has changed much for most of the set. My favorite irons are from 1991. (that being said, unless you know someone who really knows their equipment, bargain hunting on ebay might be difficult due to information overload)

The decline of the game is due to a variety of factors. Most important of these is Tiger Woods' demise, and secondary factors include pace of play at golf courses (rounds should be less than 4 hours, not 5+) as well as the inflated prices at many of these places that happened during the boom years.

Avid golfer here, while I agree with your premise on the threat to Titleist that KSIGS present. I went out and played 4-5 rounds with the Kirkland Signature and it couldn't hold a candle to the tournament balls I normally play. For a competitive golfer, the ball just is not up to par. For your weekend warrior, its a perfectly fine ball and probably better than the prov1(x) as the cover is much harder and won't wear out as fast.

As a perpetually novice golfer, I'm flattered that you think I can keep track of golf balls long enough for the durability to matter.

Plus I have yet to find a ball that will survive an encounter with a cart path, unless you fancy hitting range balls.

Wedges >> Cart path in terms of scuffing the ball imo ;)

GP, remember the days of playing Professional 90/100 balls? I sometimes miss playing balata balls but definitely don't miss the scuffing!

> For a competitive golfer, the ball just is not up to par.

Well done.

Whether that's true or not, I don't think it's enough to rely on the invisible hand to squelch this practice. The truth is, as long as it is advantageous to sue frivolously, companies will do it. And this is bad for the free market, the economy, and consumers.

Policy change should make it much more costly to launch a frivolous lawsuit (as distinct from a claim made in good faith), e.g. by making it much easier for a bullied defendant to counter-sue and win significant damages.

Similar to the email spam proposals, charge a modest fee for each motion filed.

Set it at a point that isn't a barrier for anyone filing a "normal" amount of motions, but where it increases to real money if your main business is filing large amounts of know-it-will-fail paperwork.

Filing motions is not their main business. Their main business is putting down competitors. In fact the only reason it works is that they have enough revenue that they can retain lawyers (expensive) to do these things without affecting their bottom line much. Lawyers aren't cheap for Acushnet either, they just have the cash to throw around.

Adding fees just hurts small players more. This sounds like a "solution" that makes the problem worse.

How did this work?

The fact there is a high barrier of entry might be one of the only appeals golf has at all? Playing it is a status symbol. Although, I think maybe that elite status symbols themselves may be on a downswing, maybe because of the growing awareness of wealth inequality?

Super rich people used to ride around in stretch limos and people found it interesting and exciting, now there's a growing perception that's disgusting and super rich people tend to visibly travel in much more inconspicuous vehicles (which are taking them to their private jets).

Just a random thought..

>The fact there is a high barrier of entry might be one of the only appeals golf has at all?

This is ridiculous. Golf is a sport that you can play from when you first start walking, until nearly the day you die. That's the appeal.

It requires extreme concentration in a way that I've never experienced in any other sport I've ever played.

I would highly, highly recommend that people learn to play golf. I wish it didn't have the stigma that it does with some people.

>I would highly, highly recommend that people learn to play golf. I wish it didn't have the stigma that it does with some people.

Golf is like animé - it's the fans that make it insufferable.

Kind of like Ohio State football

> This is ridiculous. Golf is a sport that you can play from when you first start walking, until nearly the day you die.

You’ve never considered that Golf has an actual price to it, while most poorer kids just play soccer with a single leather ball on the street, costing less than a dollar for dozens of kids?

It used to be much more affordable, and in some corners of the country (Texas, some parts of the Northeast), it remains reasonable. The Bay Area is one of, if not the most unaffordable place to play golf in the United States.

Fred Couples (Hall of Famer) grew up in Seattle, biked to Jefferson Park Golf Course during the summer every day with $5 in hand from his mother, played a round of golf for $3.50 and got a burger and a coke with the remaining $1.50.

Some courses (including aforementioned Jefferson) will have free or heavily discounted rounds for junior golfers after some cutoff time in the afternoon.

$5 dollars in 1970 would be $31 in 2017. Pretty expensive for poor kids.

But his narrative!! Golf is the peoples' sport, didn't you know? Its free just like Linux. As long as you can ante up your Lexus!

But that was a long time ago, and he'd still be able to play in SF today with the same amount of money, inflation adjusted:

$3.50 in 1972 (when Fred Couples was 13) is equivalent to around $20 today. (and $1.50 is now around $8.75)

Lincoln Park in SF charges weekday rates of $13 for a resident junior (or $20 for a non-resident)

Harding Park charges $20 for a resident Junior.

The burger will cost a little more, Harding Park's grill charges $14 for a burger... though Nachos or a Quesadilla are available for $9.

Couples' dad also worked for the city at the golf course and so provided his kid with many free opportunities to play golf.

No doubt that greens fees are certainly a barrier. The muni near me [1] (bordering the Boston city limit) charges $10 for a junior, which equates to about $2 an hour given the pace of play on a busy golf course. While I understand that is still not free, it is an very low barrier to entry.

Old clubs are very easy to come by (relatives, craisglist, loaners). The main thing that I feel is being overlooked on this thread is that balls can be had for free, given the child puts a small amount of time in to look for them. Walk along the tree line of any fairway in the world and it will not be long before you've found enough balls to fill your front pockets.

[1] http://www.presidentsgc.com/aboutus/rates/

I have heard it is similar to archery. I have never played. I was an archer though.

But I dislike most sports that seem contrived (archery is a real skill that became a sport because the skill is not needed, golf is just a made up game as far as I can tell).

Aren't most ball/racquet sports pretty contrived?

I think so yes.

Arrows are selling for $5-6/each!Of course they were carbon fiber and had steel heads for hunting, but I couldn't help but wonder what happened to the inexpensive arrow.

Can confirm, golf has lead me to learning severe patience and attention to detail. Its multifaceted aspect has also taught me prioritization skills. Went from 11 to 6 handicap in 2016. Still am trying to get lower.

Golf is an insufferable sport. The land and resources that go into a golf course and all the equipment are a pure sign of feckless wastelessness. It's not possible to justify. Just be indignant if you like what amounts to 5 steaks a day.

The land use is what I dislike most about it. There are a few golf courses in Sydney in prime locations. All that land that can't really be used for anything else. The worst one is in Little Bay, next to the ocean. Countless balls hit into the ocean.

So more apartments is nicer to you than some grass and trees?

It isn't just the view that matters. When you take into account gardens, housing would increase biodiversity.

That would still be better than a large piece of land that relatively few people will use. At least we'd get a few public parks and other facilities.

Hi there - seems like you're getting some downvotes and as someone else who cares about the environment, I'd love to convince you golf can actually be a good thing for land use. Some of the courses I grew up playing on were old landfills. The golf course would cap and seal the landfill, then plant vegetation on top letting it grow and then eventually putting a golf course on it. What once was a landfill and source of rodents, disease, and an eyesore on the community became an effective use of the land. Now, not every golf course is built on a landfill, but you'd be surprised how often it happens: http://americancityandcounty.com/mag/government_chicago_dump...

"The facility won top honors in the 1996 Superior Achievement for Excellence in Environmental Engineering competition sponsored by the American Academy of Environmental Engineering, which cited Harborside for addressing "the major criteria of the competition ... most important was the manner in which it met environmental and ecological concerns and contributed to an improved environment, using available materials to reverse perceived abuses and achieved significant cost reduction and control in course construction.""

> It requires extreme concentration in a way that I've never experienced in any other sport I've ever played.

I'm not a golfer but you might compare that concentration to what is required for archery, which I'm learning, and high power rifle marksmanship, which I learned when I was young. Golf's stigma doesn't approach that of shooting sports, depending on one's location/social circles.

I think any sport which requires performing a discrete task is going to be similar. I have never golfed, or tried archery or shooting in a sport setting, but I have been powerlifting for a few years. I assume the concentration aspect is similar.

Is it possible to play solo? (I understand that the avow won't count, but...)

Only appeal?? I play golf regularly and I play because I love it. My friends play cause they love it. What a feeling to stand on a tee box looking out over a wide fairway, driver in hand.

Well what do you know..a person does something because they like it. How elucidating..

You can play for $20 or less at Muni courses. Hardly a status symbol tbh. If you mean private country clubs, well the most exclusive and high status of these are often social clubs rather than golf clubs (ex: Pacific Union and Bohemian Club in SF), and the activity of golf and the private club status symbol are separate things.

Though... I have heard several times that "cycling is the new golf", and the $10,000 bikes some folks wield certainly speaks to the flaunt your wealth side of things.

Anyways, for any expensive activity, I'm sure there are some people doing it as part of the status climb, some doing it to hang out with some power network, and some doing it purely for the joy of the activity.

Addendum: Skiing is way more expensive than golf due to the travel and lodging that is almost a necessity in the States.

I'm going to guess you live in or near San Francisco? Your view of golf is going to be skewed by that. While the Bay Area has extremely expensive and exclusive golf courses, it also uniquely has .. relatively.. affordable ones.

But consider even $20 to play a game involving a stick and ball is actually still quite expensive to a child, so that's still a really high barrier to entry for a lot of people.

Outside urban areas, there are still plenty of small local country clubs that provide "unlimited" golf facilities for Members & their kids for affordable rates. $100-300/month depending on area, quality, etc...

GolfNow and other TeeTime booking sites allow for discounted rounds in your area.

Its not as cheap as Tennis & Basketball, but its not a game for the Rich and Famous only.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com