Nike Golf

by SmithersJones Mon 05 Dec 2011, 8:47 pm

Why do people think Nike are not able to produce decent golf clubs? I understand that some are cynical about Woods link to them, but as I recall it he continued to play Titleist clubs for quite a time after signing with Nike, until he was satisfied with their offering.

Their marketing focuses heavily on the 'Oven', and is all about the design and build process with input from all their tour pros, not just Woods. A number of their key design personnel have been poached from other leading manufacturers, and the number of players using their equipment, particularly the irons, is increasing steadily. Naturally they're being paid to do so, but I think it's naive to think that all pros will take every penny they can get and not care about the quality of the kit they're using.

I accept that I'm somewhat biased in their favour, as I have a set of the Pro Combo irons, but I chose them only after careful consideration and trying numerous sets from various manufacturers. The last thing that influenced me is who is or isn't endorsing them.

So what is it that causes so many of you to dismiss Nike clubs as cheap, or poor quality, or gimmicky?

by drive4show Mon 05 Dec 2011, 8:56 pm

SJ

I'm with you on this one, if I change my clubs this winter then the VR Pro combo's are on my shortlist along with Mizuno MP59's and Ping S56's. I've tried all 3 and the Nike's feel and look as good as the other sets and the finish appears top notch as well.

It might be fair to class me as a 'Tiger hater' but I certainly wouldn't let that put me off using the same brand as him if they are the best clubs for my game.

by super_realist Mon 05 Dec 2011, 8:57 pm

I don't doubt that Nike clubs that probably perform as well as the next club in fact i'm sure their development team knows all about how to make a good golf club, I think it's just the cynical way in which they entered the market which irks people and the lack of heritage in the game.
It's business I suppose, and how all companies enter a new market, I just don't like their stuff, and with the exception of the bladed irons I think all of the stuff that I've seen from then looks rather dated.

Would you buy a pair of Titleist or Cleveland trainers?
Never been keen on companies which see themselves as the "Acme" of sport.

by SmithersJones Mon 05 Dec 2011, 9:02 pm

So S_R, do you think nobody should enter the golf club market that can't point to a hickory shafted model in their past, or if they are allowed, how should they go about it?

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 05 Dec 2011, 9:12 pm

I think Nike produce a lot of awful stuff, particularly their GI/SGI irons. That said, their original blades were lovely bits of metal even if they were said to be pretty unforgiving. I gather the newer VR blades are a lot easier to play but I don't like them anywhere as much, particularly the use of red. The recent Pro Combos seem like a nice mix and pick up from the older Pro Combos which were pretty much universally liked. Their newer woods are decent enough although they couldn't get a lot worse. I admit to bias in all this as I'm a bit of a traditionalist re. looks etc.

As for their usage by tour pros, I'd say that all of them would take the Nike dollars if they're made a good offer, regardless of whether they're the best kit for their game. Nike can certainly afford to pay if they want.

by super_realist Mon 05 Dec 2011, 9:14 pm

No of course not Smithers, I think Callaway are a fairly recent addition to the market, what I dislike about Nike is that they have looked at the market and have seen that they can flood the market with their safe, but not exciting products and make lots of money.

I'm sure that's what all companies enter the market for, but the fly by night nature of Nike in golf seems a bit too predictable to me.
Most of the other companies at least have the decency to be golf specialists even if many of them are owned by larger firms like Adidas in the case of TM..

Nothing wrong with Nike really, sure they make great clubs, but not keen on how they look.

I remember when Nike tried to enter the snowsports industry and they thought they could just come in with the same logo, boring gear and people would switch over from brands they'd be using for years, they got laughed out of town and have had to change their marketing.

by Davie Mon 05 Dec 2011, 9:20 pm

Nike are one of the biggest mega-companies around. If they choose to enter the golf market (and do a good job as seems to be the case with the high end stuff) then what's the problem? Seems like a bit of snobbery to me coupled with the main face that promotes them (for the moment at least)

by super_realist Mon 05 Dec 2011, 9:23 pm

Of course there's an element of snobbery about it Davie.

It's a bit like the pikey who comes round to do your driveway, he'll probably do a decent job, but I'd prefer to leave it to the experts.

I think they've made nice stuff in the past, but they are looking a bit old and tired now. They need a big change of image.

by SmithersJones Mon 05 Dec 2011, 9:23 pm

Can't see the GI/SGI irons on their website, nbs. There are some pug ugly clubs there though.

The 'use of red'? Are you seriously suggesting that because the logo on the back of the blade, which you will never see at address, has a bit of red as well as black, you wouldn't use the clubs even if they performed well? Are you a bull or something?

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 05 Dec 2011, 9:46 pm

SJ

GI/SGI == Game Improvement/Super Game Improvement

Laugh

Yeah, yeah, I know. I just don't like the graphics/finish. Sorry, but there it is! The VRs are OK but there's other stuff out there I'd rather have, all things being equal. I'm not a bull but I have been known to talk a lot of bull from time to time...

by SmithersJones Mon 05 Dec 2011, 9:51 pm

super_realist wrote:No of course not Smithers, I think Callaway are a fairly recent addition to the market, what I dislike about Nike is that they have looked at the market and have seen that they can flood the market with their safe, but not exciting products and make lots of money.

Safe? As in traditional, boring? Completely not the case for their game improvement clubs. As for exciting, those blades look pretty exciting to me.

I'm sure that's what all companies enter the market for, but the fly by night nature of Nike in golf seems a bit too predictable to me.
Most of the other companies at least have the decency to be golf specialists even if many of them are owned by larger firms like Adidas in the case of TM..

They've been making golf clubs for at least 10 years now, how long do they have to be around to be considered established?
Specialists? Like Mizuno (athletics, some racket sports), or Wilson (too many to mention), or as you point out, Adidas (just because they don't call their clubs Adidas Golf doesn't make them any more specialist), or Fila (80s casual gear, tracksuits!)

Nothing wrong with Nike really, sure they make great clubs, but not keen on how they look.
Too safe, or too un-traditional?

I remember when Nike tried to enter the snowsports industry and they thought they could just come in with the same logo, boring gear and people would switch over from brands they'd be using for years, they got laughed out of town and have had to change their marketing.

So it sounds like they learned their lesson, and have gone about approaching the golf market in just about the best way possible.

by super_realist Mon 05 Dec 2011, 10:02 pm

That's it though Smithers, I know you are standing up for them, but everything they do is just too generic for my liking, and what nice stuff they do make lacks exclusivity, the Ford Focus of the golf world, inoffensive, quality products but won't exactly get the pulse racing.

I think they've had their best days in golf. Other companies such as Adams are really up and coming while Titleist are back making quality products again.

I did say that other companies are owned by larger ones such as Titleist by Fila and TM by Adidas who they aquired from Salomon, but that just means they own them, A Bentley isn't a VW, it's still a Bentley regardless of who built it.
These were originally specialist companies that started making golf gear early on in their life and that have been bought over, not just entering the golf market because it's the only mainstream sport they weren't part of.
I don't see Titleist or Adams making running spikes or tennis rackets just because they probably could if they wanted to enter the market. Likewise I wouldn't buy a Callaway mountain bike.

To me the gear just says pile it high.

by SmithersJones Mon 05 Dec 2011, 10:38 pm

Strange how we have such completely opposite views of their product range. I see them as one of the most dynamic companies in the golf market, with a range of clubs that goes from the traditional blade all the way to some of the ugliest game improvement clubs I've ever seen. The likes of Callaway seem very staid to me (what's the difference between the x-22 and any of their other irons?) and Titleist are doing nothing but revamping their models each year and adding £100 to the price. TM have a reasonable range, but seem only to market the gimmicky R11s. Just goes to show it's all about perception, really.

by super_realist Mon 05 Dec 2011, 10:44 pm

Callaway are the same, a high number of very ugly game improvement clubs but some very pretty blades. Like the X-Proto
Not keen on Taylor Made either although they too make a very nice bladed iron.

Somebody posted a link to a set of Yonex blades today, now they looked pretty special, I'm sure every forged blade is similar, but I like the exclusivity of those, Nike forged blades are 10 a penny and a rather unimaginative choice in my opinion.

by Del_Boy Mon 05 Dec 2011, 10:45 pm

If we all liked the same stuff there would only be a couple of companies around. If there is a market for it then companies would pile 'em high and that goes or Titleist or Adams tennis rackets or running shoes

by oldshanker Mon 05 Dec 2011, 10:48 pm

True but......Historically, it seems that all sports manufacturers tend towards multiple sports equipment, rather than solely specialising in one. If they do appear to specialise in one, I suspect it is because they are a named branch of a bigger conglomerate, although Adams does appear to be on their own, but do not have a particularly long pedigree themselves, 1987 to be exact.

Whereas most of the big boys will hide behind other brand names, at least Nike have the cojones to always use just their name......I think......waiting to be proven a pratt........oh and Titleist do not make running spikes because Fila do, ditto Adidas! Its logical business sense, but Adams do make, or at least licence, clothing and duffle bags.

Blimey things have moved on a bit. I feel like I'm in a time warp. Oh Boy!

by super_realist Mon 05 Dec 2011, 10:56 pm

Shankers, Titleist haven't even been part of Fila for a year yet, they're hardly going to start making trainers now, although I hear Puma are going to start making clubs, which if they are as ghastly as their golf clothing are going to be frightful looking clubs.
Whereas Adidas bought Taylor Made from Salomon who originally bought Taylor Made out, TM still make them, Adidas just own them. Doesn't really make a TM club an Adidas club, anymore than a Jaguar is a Tata.

Nike tried to enter the winter sports market by trying to call themselves "All Climate Gear. a.k.a ACG, it fooled no one, and they basically bombed. They've had to try again but are only finding moderate success because other companies do it better and are more innovative.

To me, Nike seem like the annoying work aquaintance that you just can't shake off.

by oldshanker Mon 05 Dec 2011, 11:04 pm

But that's what I'm saying s_r.

Sports manufacturers either make loads of different equipment for multiple sports i.e. Wilson, Dunlop, Spalding (who did used to make bicycles and small arms) and Nike under their own name brand. Or they have multiple divisions that specialise in particular areas.

I will grant you that Adams does appear to stand alone.

by Del_Boy Mon 05 Dec 2011, 11:05 pm

Yes they certainly bombed in the winter sports market but if you look at it from a purely corporate view they have convincingly out performed the Dow jones and footsie over the last 20 years and I'm sure Nike golf has helped in that regard.

by Doc Tue 06 Dec 2011, 10:22 am

I don't think Nike are as popular in the states as they once were, due to outsourcing most of their production offshore. Yes corporate Nike have been a massive success story and encroached on the golf market, but mass producing golf clubs with 95% made in China/Taiwan has seen quality standards drop, but also competative pricing.

Companies like Adams and Yonex have taken the view that to compete they need to have a point of difference. They know they can't compete unless they up quality, and both these companies have started making inroads into TM and Nike, by producing some really good kit. The Yonex EZone blade is the best looking thing I've seen, but to do this they've gone back into Japan to up the quality levels. Yes Nike also do some of their top end forgings in Japan, but at a big price. Nike's European business model works like this; manufactured in China and heads shipped to Poland and other Eastern block states. The heads are shafted and finished clubs stored and shipped to dealers around Europe. The major issue revolves around QC as heads can have incorrect shafts fitted or substandard shafts fitted inccorectly. Not saying that everything that comes out of these places is poor, but a line of Polish workers who know nothing about golf, sticking a shaft into a hozel when he's on piece work, doesn't fill me with confidence.

So they and other companies like TM etc, have taken over the market, making smaller OEM's more of a boutique producer. On the other hand you could also say that the lower priced equipment has enabled a lot more people to get into golf, and made golf more accesible. Lower priced sub-standard equipment is ok for the starter or player who only gets out a few times each year, but after that buying a new set is an expensive investment, and the big boys try and perpetuate the market by introducing the next big thing. We all know plenty of people who change drivers every year etc.

So for me when looking at equipment, I only go for quality, and would never buy anything off the shelf anymore. If I were purchasing Nike it would be their top end Japanese forgings, and they would be bought from a club fitter to ensure the lofts are correct and that the correct shaft is fitted. I also accept that I'm lucky enough to be able to do it.

by JPX Tue 06 Dec 2011, 10:27 am

I like the Nike clubs, not keen in their bags but that's just because they don't appeal to me. Their VR blades are very nice to the eye, I've only ever looked at one in a AG store, and it gave me the, well you know "this feels nice" feeling, wouldn't mind giving them a go.

by Marcus Tue 06 Dec 2011, 1:27 pm

Nike woods (with the exception of the Vr) invariably look and sound horrible.

Their players irons (such as the Vr combo) look good.

All of their clothing is poor quality and ill fitting, and their shoes, with one exception, look absolutely hideous.

I'd never use any Nike golf equipment due to the the fact that it's the golf brand for chavs. Being kitted out head to toe in Nike golf gear is the equivalent to going down the local discotheque wearing a tracksuit, gold chain and sovereign rings, and thinking you look stylish.

I know this will make me a golf snob, but so be it.

by JDandfries Tue 06 Dec 2011, 1:32 pm

I have no pre-determined views on any golf brand, except 1 (ill mention this later).

My experience of Nike is limited, although I have had both the Ignite and the VR REd Driver, both of which have been great.

I have never liked the irons, until the VR blades, my pal has a ste, and I would consider them if I ever decided to change my irons - something I havent even considered in 15 years.

Nike is going to be good, they have a lot of players behind them, and have money and a sporting reputation, so no reason to avoid them.

However, all golfers should avoid Callaway golf equiptment at all costs, they havent made a decent driver for 10 years or a decent set of irons (unless you wanna spend +£1200 on their limited edition ones.

Nike is ok, and will get better I imagine

by Marcus Tue 06 Dec 2011, 1:36 pm

The Callaway FT Tour driver is an excellent club, and so are all of their forged iron/wedge offerings. I agree that all the rest is a pile of junk though.

by ralphjohn69 Tue 06 Dec 2011, 1:43 pm

Re the previous few posts; I've been using a Callaway X Tour driver for the past 5 years and also have a Callaway 3-wood, comfortably my favourite 2 clubs in my bag; along with my 15-year old Ping My Day putter anyway!

And I also wear mostly Nike polo-shirts in spite of my general dislike for a certain Mr T Woods.

Each to their own I guess...........!

by JDandfries Tue 06 Dec 2011, 1:51 pm

Yeah ok, the wedges are decent, driver's are garbage though, not a good one since the Biggest Big

by hogie Tue 06 Dec 2011, 4:28 pm

When I think of Nike clubs I still think of the “inferior equipment” jab Mickelson took at Woods & Nike. If I was looking for new clubs and somebody mentioned Nike that quote would still put me off Nike even though I’m sure their clubs are probably right up there with the best of them now.

by super_realist Tue 06 Dec 2011, 4:35 pm

Jack of all trades master of none I would say. I can't think of one sport why they make industry leading equipment.

by raycastleunited Tue 06 Dec 2011, 4:53 pm

Marcus wrote:

All of their clothing is poor quality and ill fitting,

Surely this depends on your body shape? I cannot wear tops by Ashworth, Callaway etc as they seem to be designed for people whose waist measurement is larger than their chest measurement.

I actually think some of their golf clothing is pretty high quality material (mainly the TW range, I have a lightweight waterproof jacket as good as anything made by the top end brands)) although yes they do flood american golf with cheap polo shirts.

by Marcus Tue 06 Dec 2011, 5:05 pm

raycastleunited wrote:
Marcus wrote:

All of their clothing is poor quality and ill fitting,

Surely this depends on your body shape? I cannot wear tops by Ashworth, Callaway etc as they seem to be designed for people whose waist measurement is larger than their chest measurement.

I actually think some of their golf clothing is pretty high quality material (mainly the TW range, I have a lightweight waterproof jacket as good as anything made by the top end brands)) although yes they do flood american golf with cheap polo shirts.

Yes, it's entirely dependent on body shape. It appears that most manufacturers of average quality golfing attire still believe that the average body shape of a golfer is modeled on a fat American company CEO, who smokes cigars and wears a cowboy hat while playing. Even half decent brands such as Ralph Lauren are just as bad. An XL in most brands resembles a parachute.

Being a svelte young man Whistle

I think I shall stick to J Lindeberg.

by Maverick Tue 06 Dec 2011, 5:30 pm

I actually have no issue with Nike clothing tends to fit my atheltic shape very well providing you buy the right english size as some stockists get american sizes in and the fit issues occur then.

Ashworth and callaway tend to hang like something only a middle aged fat yank should wear, have to say best fits for the atheletic types are Lindberg and Izod (the lacoste golf brand)

by super_realist Tue 06 Dec 2011, 5:38 pm

Maverick wrote:I actually have no issue with Nike clothing tends to fit my atheltic shape very well providing you buy the right english size as some stockists get american sizes in and the fit issues occur then.

Ashworth and callaway tend to hang like something only a middle aged fat yank should wear, have to say best fits for the atheletic types are Lindberg and Izod (the lacoste golf brand)

You mean that an American 'medium' is about a xxxl over here. You'd look like shane lowry after he'd been on the slimfast diet.

by raycastleunited Tue 06 Dec 2011, 5:40 pm

Maverick wrote:I actually have no issue with Nike clothing tends to fit my atheltic shape very well providing you buy the right english size as some stockists get american sizes in and the fit issues occur then.

Ashworth and callaway tend to hang like something only a middle aged fat yank should wear, have to say best fits for the atheletic types are Lindberg and Izod (the lacoste golf brand)

I share the same view. Apart from Lindeberg, most of my golf tops are Nike, Adidas and Puma... i.e. the sporty brands, because they seem to be designed for people like me who can still run for a bus.

I've got some Izod golf trousers, never knew they were part of lacoste.

by Maverick Tue 06 Dec 2011, 5:46 pm

You mean that an American 'medium' is about a xxxl over here. You'd look like shane lowry after he'd been on the slimfast diet..

Thats the ones SR, the size that would be able to put a belt round and wear as a dress if your that way inclined

I share the same view. Apart from Lindeberg, most of my golf tops are Nike, Adidas and Puma... i.e. the sporty brands, because they seem to be designed for people like me who can still run for a bus.

I've got some Izod golf trousers, never knew they were part of lacoste..

I can't stand Adidas clothing just don't like the styles, but do like the golf shoes and own a couple of pairs as they are very comfortable.

Puma stuff i've just started buying, very good fit and some stylish gear coming out of them.

Izod Lacoste, been part of their brand since the year dot, very nice stuff

by Sponsored content

Nike Golf

Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf

Re: Nike Golf