Tiger Woods is Killing Nike Golf
News

Tiger Woods is Killing Nike Golf

Tiger Woods is Killing Nike Golf

Written By: Tony Covey

In the history of Nike Golf there was Duval (and now Duval again), and Glover, and Cink, and now Rory, and Stanley, and Watney too, but before there were any of them, there was Tiger Woods.

Tiger Woods isn’t simply synonymous with Nike Golf, Tiger Woods is Nike Golf. He put them on the map, and while it has taken some time, Tiger is the reason why most view Nike as a legitimate player on the golf equipment scene.

2013 should be a banner year for Nike. Most of the world has moved on from the scandal, Josyln James, and whatever mostly nameless Perkins waitress you want to throw in the mix. The Sergio mess aside, Tiger is healthy, he seems happy (as happy as Tiger ever seems), and most importantly for Nike, he’s not only winning again, one could make a legitimate argument that he’s playing the best golf of his life.

In any other sport this kind of success would be a slam dunk for the company in Nike’s position, but this isn’t any other sport, it’s golf, and while I’m hard-pressed to explain exactly how it’s different, I’m certain that it is.

If Nike is serious about becoming the #1 Company in Golf, and they’ve told me as much on a few occasions now, they need to realize they’ve outgrown Tiger Woods. He’s not only taken them as far as any one man could have, the company’s apparent continued reliance on him to take them even further is killing Nike Golf.

I’m not suggesting they dump him. He’s absolutely a key piece to any future success, but you can’t build the #1 Company in Golf around a single athlete, not even when that athlete is Tiger Woods. To get to #1 Nike needs more than Tiger Woods. They need more than Rory McIlroy too. A whole lot more.

What they must do is fundamentally change their approach to the golf business.

Maybe I’m wrong, but as a guy on the outside with a little bit of inside knowledge, it sure looks like the engine powering Nike Golf’s breakout season has stalled.

To get things moving in the right direction again, I respectfully (as respectfully as I’m capable of anyway) submit this list of 5 Things Nike Golf needs to do if they’re serious about being #1:

1. Get the New Gear In Tiger’s Bag

I know…easier said than done. It’s Tiger, he’s the best in the world, and he’s not going to play anything he doesn’t want too, but Tiger’s gear is a big problem for Nike.

Tiger isn’t just good, Tiger is too good. Nike is always going to have to fight the perception that Tiger could win with absolutely anything in his bag.

Most knowledgeable consumers already believe that Tiger would still win if you forced him to play with 3 croquet mallets, a hockey stick, and a tennis ball (USGA Rules not withstanding), but it still doesn’t look good for Nike when Tiger is winning at a better than 50% clip with a 2 year old driver and a golf ball that’s been off the shelf for just as long.

Michael Jordan never wore last year’s shoes.

Every Tiger win is a missed opportunity to promote the new gear. Worse yet, it’s actually bad for business. If the new stuff isn’t good enough for Tiger, why the hell should the average golfer put it in his bag?

The Covert should have been the biggest driver story of the year, but it’s not. That’s in no small part due to Tiger’s continued use of what for the rest of us is supposed to be obsolete technology.

Like I said…I get it. Equipment changes for guys at Tiger’s level are kind of a big deal, and Tiger is notoriously precise. It takes time, effort, and a whole lot of trial and error (which is why the USGA’s Conforming Driver list is about 6 versions of the Covert deep at this point), but I gotta be honest with you, it doesn’t look good when red is on the shelves and black is in Tiger’s bag.

When Tiger wins the US Open, and I’m pretty sure he will, if he does it without the signature red club in the bag (sorry, a fairway wood barely counts), you can close the book on the Covert. Whatever story Nike had left to tell… forget about it. It’s over. The same is true for RZN 2.0. You might as well bring back the Tour D.

The smart play is to take a page out of TaylorMade’s book on this one. When they release a new driver, the biggest names on their staff play it. Immediately. The brand is bigger than the athlete, and it should be.

Who’s paying whom?

Granted, TaylorMade doesn’t have a Tiger Woods on the roster, but they do have a lot of other guys. And those others guys…within a month of release, they made the R1 the #1 Driver on Tour, which is a big part of the reason the R1, even with a $400 price tag, and a questionable paint job, is one of the best selling drivers on the market right now.

If you can’t get Tiger to make the switch, at least paint the damn thing red.

2. Get More Guys

Nike needs more tour spread. Yeah, it’s stupid how much value the average consumer places on what the tour guys have in their bags, but that’s how it goes. It’s Pyramid of Influence 101.

Nike knows this. It’s why they pay Tiger, Rory, and Schwartzel, Watney, and those other guys (and women) stupid amounts of money to wear the swoosh. To be a serious player at retail, you gotta have guys on tour.

The problem for Nike is that their top guy only plays 1/3 of the time and the #2 guy plays only slightly more often. If you can force Tiger and Rory to play twice as often – and even if you can –  you’re going to need a lot more guys. A lot more than the handful you added this season.

Golf isn’t like the other sports where having the most popular guy in the game all but guarantees you’ll outsell the competition.

Case in point:  Nike has Tiger Woods, TaylorMade has Sergio Garcia.

We all know who the more successful (and the more popular) golfer is, but who’s #1 in drivers? Who’s #1 in irons. Who’s the #1 company in golf right now?

TaylorMade is #1, not because they have the best player…or the two best players. They don’t win the most majors.  They’re #1 because they have more guys playing their gear. More guys means more sales. It’s a numbers game, and  a pretty easy one at that.

Let me drop some circular logic on you. You know why Titleist is the #1 Ball in Golf? It’s not because any single golfer plays the Pro V1, it’s because just about everyone who isn’t (and some who are) on staff with TaylorMade, Nike, Callaway or Cleveland has the Pro V1 in their bag. Titleist has the #1 Ball in Golf because Titleist has the #1 Ball in Golf. The numbers are self-perpetuating.

To get to #1, you’re going to need more guys.

3. Put the Social Back in Your Social Media

Nike sucks at social media. Sorry, there’s no point in tap dancing around it. It’s easy to look at the raw numbers (Nike has the largest social media following in all of golf) and interpret the count as a measure of success. It’s not. It speaks to the popularity of the Nike brand, and the popularity of Tiger Woods, but please believe me when I tell you you’re doing it wrong.

Social Media presents the most direct opportunity for a company to have a real conversation with potential customers and fans, and given their reach, Nike Golf has the biggest opportunity in all of golf. And thus far, Nike Golf has completely squandered it.

Tiger Woods…he has 3.3 million followers and he’s equally as awful.

In Tiger’s defense, he’s got better things to do than tweet, and so from what I can tell, he doesn’t.

Tiger’s every tweeted word…hell every syllable is clearly scripted, scrutinized, and sanitized. There’s barely an ounce of actual genuine humanity in the entire feed. It’s not @TigerWoods it’s @TigerWoodsPRMachine. It’s disingenuous and it’s painfully obvious. That’s fine…for Tiger.

Unfortunately, where Social Media is concerned Nike Golf appears to be to following Tiger’s lead.

While I am unbiased in my assessment of the industry, on a human level, I’m anything but. The people I know at Nike from President Cindy Davis to the R&D  guys to the PR team are some of my favorites. They’re brilliant, they’re insightful. They’re good people, and most importantly, they’re genuine. They have personality, and that’s where the tremendous disconnect is.

Nike’s Tweets and Facebook posts are a formulaic mix of What Would You Do photos, tour news, product shots, mad libs (Nike Golf _____ at Social Media), and what can best be described as motivational posters (Just Do It). Actual interaction is tossed aside in favor of a steady stream of one-way conversations. We talk, then you talk, but we don’t converse. There’s no back-and-forth. It’s not compelling, it’s not fun, and there’s no real engagement. At least the pictures are cool.

The Nike is Social Media experience is 180 degrees away from my experience with the actual people at Nike Golf.

Just Interact, dammit.

Trust your people to kill it, and they will. I’m sure of it.

Contrast Nike’s approach with that of Callaway.

This time last year, Callaway was pretty horrible at Social Media too (they sucked), but they’ve transformed themselves – almost overnight. The new Callaway has been aggressive, but very genuine in its approach to Social media. They’ve got people at all levels of the company actively involved and interacting with the consumer. Most importantly they’ve embraced their humanity.  You know there’s a real person on the other end of the wire.

Callaway’s Social Media success is a large part of the reason why thee company turnaround is happening faster than anyone could have imagined.

Nike’s Social Media approach isn’t simply bland, it’s robotic. It’s the voice that asks you to speak or input your credit card account number using your touch-tone phone.

4. Never Mind the Athlete, Believe in the 40 Year Old Fat Guy

It’s great that you believe in the athlete, and it does make for one hell of a tagline. It looks great in those motivational-style graphics that keep popping up on Twitter and Facebook.

That kind of approach has clearly worked well in football, and metric football (soccer), basketball and running. I’m fairly certain it’d be a hit in hockey too, but this is golf, and like I said at the beginning, golf is different.

Athletes don’t play golf…well some do, but the point is golf is not the exclusive domain of athletes. Golf is one of the few sports that allows non-athletes to play…and even play competitively at some level into our 80s. Hell, I’ve got a 90 something year-old at my club who still manages to hit balls on the range. They don’t go very far, but the old man is swinging.

He’s awesome, but he’s not an athlete, and majority of us who play golf, we’re not athletes either…at least not anymore.

You want to kill it in golf? You really want to be #1? To hell with the athlete, believe in the 40 year old fat guy. Believe in him, and all the other non-athletes and former athletes who live and breathe the game of golf every day.

Recreational golfers are only partly delusional. We’re willing to believe that your driver will give us 10 more yards, and your irons will make us better ballstrikers. We’re all but certain that new gear and new gear alone will absolutely lower our scores, but when pressed, most of us aren’t deluded enough that we actually think of ourselves as athletes.

The problem with believing in the athlete is that it conveys the message that Nike Golf’s gear has nothing to do with success on the golf course. It’s the athlete not the equipment.

And you’re right, it is the athlete…or at the very least, it’s the golfer, but that doesn’t mean you print it. To get to the top, you absolutely need us to believe it’s the gear.

You can still believe in the athlete, but if  the 40 year old fat guy doesn’t believe your gear will make him better, 100 red clubs (or just 14) in Tiger’s bag won’t get him to buy a single one of them.

5. Take Some of Your Balls Out of Tiger’s Bucket

That’s right…diversify. Everything I’ve said so far has led to this. Rely less on Tiger Woods. Keep him in the family, but pick your spots. As absurd as it might sound, let him be just another guy on the Nike roster.

Wait for him to give you something brilliant on the golf course to use. And I think everyone reading this is certain he will. Celebrate his every accomplishment, but stop forcing it. Nike Golf is bigger than Tiger Woods…at least it should be.

We loved the initial Tiger and Rory spot. It was brilliant. It was funny, and it presented one of those rare moments when Tiger came across as genuine and likable. That matters.

The other Tiger stuff you’ve done…the “Winning Takes Care of Everything”, the Earl Woods spot after the scandal; one is smug, the other is distasteful, and neither did anything to bring people to the Nike Golf Brand. Both made me think less of Nike Golf, and I’m certain I’m not alone.

Nike is bigger and better than that. I’m certain of that too.

Oh sure…predictably some people ate it up, because they love Tiger, they loved you for it, but that’s what politicians call playing to your base. It gets your crowd fired up, but when the dust settles you’re nowhere, but where you started.

Let’s be honest, even Tiger’s biggest fans would likely concede that he’s not the most charismatic athlete Nike has ever had on the roster. He’s not Michael Jordan. He’s not Bo Jackson. He’s probably not Lance Armstrong either, and even if he was, when applied to golf, the model is flawed.

Finding the guy – or even the guys (if you want to throw Rory in there too) – and building your brand around him, is never going to work in golf.  You’ll sell a lot of shirts, and some shoes too, but filling a golf bag with 2 grand worth of gear, it’s never going to happen. It takes more than one guy…more than two guys to do that. It takes a smart company and a diversified marketing strategy.

Michael Jordan won 72 games over the 1995-1996 season. 1 season, 72 wins. It has taken Tiger 17 years to win 78 times on the PGA Tour. I know…that’s a stupid comparison. Basketball isn’t golf. It’s apples and oranges.

It’s not the same, and that’s exactly my point.

If Nike is going to be the #1 Company in golf, they’re going to have do a lot of things differently.

None of this is on Tiger

This isn’t a statement on who Tiger Woods is as a golfer, a person, or a pitchman. I’m not drinking any hater-aid. Nobody is arguing that Tiger isn’t the greatest golfer on the planet right now. Any brand in golf should be a stronger retail force with Tiger on the roster.

I’ll say it again, Nike Golf is what it is today because of Tiger Woods. He put them on the map.

Rhode Island is on the map too, and it’s not getting any bigger.

As a company, and a brand, Nike Golf has simply become too dependent on Tiger Woods.

He’s not the face of the brand, he’s the shoulders of the brand. He and he alone carries them – and that’s no model for long-term success in the golf industry, especially for a company that aspires to be #1.

Until Nike Golf figures out how to climb off of Tiger’s shoulders and adopts a strategy that focuses on the equipment and not the athlete, and does so in a way that’s genuine-enough to resonate with the consumer, they’ll only go as far as Tiger can carry them…and he’s already carried them about as far as any one man can.

For You

For You

Golf Shafts
Apr 14, 2024
Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
News
Apr 14, 2024
A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
Drivers
Apr 13, 2024
Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony is the Editor of MyGolfSpy where his job is to bring fresh and innovative content to the site. In addition to his editorial responsibilities, he was instrumental in developing MyGolfSpy's data-driven testing methodologies and continues to sift through our data to find the insights that can help improve your game. Tony believes that golfers deserve to know what's real and what's not, and that means MyGolfSpy's equipment coverage must extend beyond the so-called facts as dictated by the same companies that created them. Most of all Tony believes in performance over hype and #PowerToThePlayer.

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey





    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      CW

      11 years ago

      NIKE will NEVER be Nr 1 in Golf whatever they do.Period !

      Reply

      jim

      11 years ago

      ….and the day will come when all the networks and media types won’t care whether Tiger’s on the course or not

      Reply

      biki

      11 years ago

      I think Frank and many others are missing the point of the article. If you ask the question why aren’t Nike golf on top? Then this article makes a lot of sense. They have the 2 best players in the world and the brand is still lagging behind others and this should simply not be the case. It’s not an issue of liking Tiger or this article blaming him,its simply about selling golf gear and Nike doesn’t do that to the same degree as other companies. Obviously the article is just an opinion but it made me look at what some 15 or so guys at my course carry in their bags. one, yes one guy with a Nike driver no one with Nike irons, fairway woods or putters. I suggest others do the same at your own courses if its similar then you cannot but agree the article is accurate and Nike are seriously flawed in their approach to becoming world #1

      Reply

      Nic B

      11 years ago

      Horrible article and terrible points. If you ran nike golf theyd be irrrelevant in a year. Almost seems like you wrote this article just for attention.

      Reply

      Bryan Johnston

      11 years ago

      I think Frank and many others are missing the point of the article. If you ask the question why aren’t Nike golf on top? Then this article makes a lot of sense. They have the 2 best players in the world and the brand is still lagging behind others and this should simply not be the case. It’s not an issue of liking Tiger or this article blaming him,its simply about selling golf gear and Nike doesn’t do that to the same degree as other companies. Obviously the article is just an opinion but it made me look at what some 15 or so guys at my course carry in their bags. one, yes one guy with a Nike driver no one with Nike irons, fairway woods or putters. I suggest others do the same at your own courses if its similar then you cannot but agree the article is accurate and Nike are seriously flawed in their approach to becoming world #1

      Reply

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      You’re right to bring the discussion back to the actual article, and I think you’re pretty much right in your assessment. I do think it matters how much people “like” Woods, though, if he’s going to be the main guy as the face of Nike golf equipment.

      Reply

      noscade

      11 years ago

      I think the title should be Rory Mc Elroy is killing Nike golf.

      Reply

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      Tellin’ ya. I like the kid just fine, but _man_ are people ever quick to name “the next Woods,” just like we had about a dozen “next Nicklauses.”

      Reply

      TwoSolitudes

      11 years ago

      Does anyone seriously doubt that Nike could make a Covert driver that would be perfectly suited to Tigers swing and preform for him as well as what he uses now? Of course they could. And I bet they offered to do just that.

      When Nike was getting into the golf name it just needed to associate itself with the biggest name possible. It didn’t matter what version he played, it was just about getting Tiger Woods=Nike=serious golf, in the mind of the consumer. Mission accomplished. It was worth whatever they paid.

      But Nike has move on from that. Most people know the equipment is now good and just about everyone recognizes that Nike is a serious player. Time for them to move to phase 2, where the Nike reps are talking up specific brands and becoming a part of the whole marketing push. That is not Tiger and probably will never be Tiger.

      Someone mentioned Phil, and say what you will about him, he does talk up the equipment and he uses it. Covert was really a lost opportunity. Nike could drop Tiger, pick up 2 or 3 other top 10 players for the same money and have that Nike Red all over the TV.

      Reply

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      Yeah, but if you had the #1 guy in the game, would you really give him up for two or three other players? Even hypothetically?

      What Nike needs is not to dump Woods, but to get Woods to stop acting like an a-hole so much of the time, to lose the arrogance, to act actually contrite (going for “sex addiction” therapy and such doesn’t count), and to get off this “winning takes care of everything” attitude that is just a big middle finger to the world. Stop essentially telling people to f@#k off just because they think somebody ought to act like a moral and ethical human being with some decency when it comes to things like cursing in front of kids. Show some humility. If Sergio says something like he did at the Players, instead of fanning the flames or trying to dry-hump him to establish dominance, just be a good guy and say something like “Hey, I didn’t even notice — I was focused on my own shot. Sorry. I’ll try to pay better attention next time.” Stop thinking that merely winning and dominating your generation ought to be enough to get people to like you.

      If a company is going to put a spokesperson out there as the face of the operation, it’s got to be somebody that people actually like and feel good about. People admire Woods’ skill, they’re awed by him, but he seems determined to keep most people from actually liking him in the way a Palmer did (and still does).

      You have to wonder sometimes what the psychology of the guy is, why he persistently seems to need to project this “f@#% all of you” kind of thing, except on the rare occasions when he knows he’s gone too far, and he comes out and reads a prepared statement.

      But I would agree that Nike’s problem goes beyond Woods. They’re still seen by many as the mouthy new guy with all kinds of demands on retailers. And at least some stories have it that, like Woods, instead of just trying to be decent about it and build some goodwill, they do a lot of elbow-throwing and hardballing. I don’t think it helps that they were known for being a big name in so many other sports. If you look at the big names in golf, they’re all golf-specific, except for Mizuno (and I think word of mouth, combined with really amazing product quality especially in their irons, explains their relative success).

      Reply

      Eidolon

      11 years ago

      Wife will not allow any thing with a Nike logo in the house for an understandable reason, as other women don’t, I have heard. I am a Titleist guy myself anyway. Many people don’t buy Nike products because they don’t like the way Knight started out, that being, selling grossley overpriced sneakers to young people who could never afford them. Also, who wants clubs that are routely dumped at online closeout operations like SierraTradingpost.com.

      Reply

      Robert

      11 years ago

      Does your boss also tell you to “stop defending yourself”? Keep in mind, what people say or do has more to do with them, than anything you have said or done.

      Reply

      mygolfspy

      11 years ago

      No, I actually prefer him and the others be transparent. While you might not agree with the title, in our opinion it was not only relevant but also effective.

      But thanks for the constructive criticism, it is always appreciated.

      Reply

      spencer096

      11 years ago

      lil incendiary, don’t you think?

      better title based on your premise wouldve been “nike’s marketing strategy is killing nike golf…which isn’t really being killed at all, but whatever.”

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      11 years ago

      Off topic a bit, but let’s talk about it…

      The purpose of the headline is to get people interested (or agitated) enough to get them to click and read.

      With that in mind, the reality is, this was very likely the best headline we could have written. It is definitive, relevant to the story, and it absolutely plays to the polarizing nature of Tiger Woods.

      So no…while less incendiary, the headline you suggested would not have been better. The number of readers who ‘care’ about Tiger Woods…or have a strong opinion about him, is substantially higher than those who have the same passionate feelings about Nike Golf.

      I could have titled the article, “5 Things Nike Needs to Do to Improve Their Position in the Golf Industry”…I almost fell asleep reading that as I was writing it. Same article, much less interest in reading on.

      I could have titled it a half a dozen other ways, but I’m all but certain none of them would have been more effective at bringing traffic to the article.

      I’ll be brutally honest, I don’t always love it, and my boss is constantly pushing me to write more compelling headlines (my first instinct is to call it what it is and trust that my writing is good enough to keep people interested), but the reality is we live in an attention deficit society, and that means I get only half a dozen words or so to draw the reader in. The consequence of that reality is that a story (regardless of how you feel about the content) is only as good as the headline.

      Reply

      TwoSolitudes

      11 years ago

      Great read. Entertaining and controversial! Pretty clear to anyone I think, that not having your top guy playing your latest equipment is going to cost you plenty of sales.

      “Who’s paying who?”- Love it.

      Reply

      GarnetinOZ

      11 years ago

      Journalism 101… take a controversial position and write to it, doesn’t matter whether you are writing about politics, sex or golf clubs… it always works to sell newspapers (or get read)
      Enjoyed the article and the drama that ensued…

      Reply

      Frank

      11 years ago

      Or more specifically simply yellow journalism. Sad to have to click on this site that provides great review info to have to see and read this trash My Golf Spy goes yellow TMZ style.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      11 years ago

      One small point Frank, you didn’t HAVE to come here. You came here of your own free will. And based on your reaction, it’s hard to imagine you actually read the whole thing…and again, by your reaction, if you did, you clearly missed the point.

      stevieC

      11 years ago

      I’m a branding guy…only partly in sporting goods work (converse, champion, reebok).

      I think Tony’s mostly correct, and I guarantee you that all his points have been analyzed @ Nike (many times). Companies like NIke do relentless research around branding (strategy, messaging, positioning, even personality matrix dynamics) , but in the end it remains political and driven by individuals internally at Nike (with budget, influence and/or power) and externally with the Tiger team .

      Nike has already won with Tiger…

      Calling an opinion piece yellow journalism is in fact employing a tactic of yellow journalsim.

      Frank

      11 years ago

      Uh Tony, you missed the point. Of course I come here of my own free will and have for years to read quality golf information presented in the most unfiltered and objective way the MyGolf Spy is famous for. Not to read some aspiring journalist impression of whats going on with corporate Nike. And an article truly written and headlined to draw in clicks an views where the issue has been sensationalized to do just that. A man with a blood red axe and the word killing…… you offer little or no detailed information on the true economics of the Nike gold business …just your opinion on such. Your article and info is just your opinion with very little substance. Suppose you had written this article for an audience of Nike investors. There is just no beef….just opinion.

      You have provided little or no legitimate well-researched news or datat and instead use eye-catching headlines and techniques that include include exaggerations of your opinion of Nike’s golf business. You wrote and made the headline to attract clicks. It is simply yellow journalism as has been practiced for decades.

      MyGolf Spy is known for providing great unfiltered testing/review information on golf equipment and stuff. You are simply trying to stretch the brand in to another area and have resorted to yellow journalism techniques established decades ago to do so in this Tiger is Killing Nike Golf Article. Get over yourself. Or I guess be happy that your technique worked and you got your desired page views. The article is worthless and at best is simply YOUR opinion in a blog post rant about Nike golf and Tiger. Readers of MyGolf Spy do not come to this web site to read this BS.

      Bamagolf1

      11 years ago

      People don’t realize that Nike doesn’t give a crap about beating taylormade in golf… They don’t have to. Nike has Tiger Woods for the sole purpose to bring in money for ALL of Nike, not just golf. Nike outsells the hell out of taylormade and Adidas when it comes to overall sales so why should they care about the golf?

      Reply

      Adam Staelin

      11 years ago

      geez, I am super impressed with your ability to stir the pot. I am a huge Tiger fan but until recently not a big fan of either their equipment or their gear. However, since I have had the opportunity to demo a fair amount of both I am coming around. While I aways root for the little guy, the fact is Nike knows apparel and shoes and for the price they charge, they get it right. Like you I have 15 pairs of golf shoes and I basically wear Trues and Nike Lunar Control. They just know feet.

      As for the equipment, I have always been puzzled to why they never gained a foot hold. I suppose it was the early mis-fires but as you know, they now make a solid driver (I have yet to play the irons or putters).

      What I do believe is that Nike has always operated under the principal of getting the top 5 athletes no matter what the cost. They may not have the biggest team, but you know it is always the best. While I understand your argument, Nike is crushing it (at least as far as I can tell) so why mess with the formula?

      Sure Taylormade, has like 12 guys and you know what, I could give a hoot about every one of them but the top 2 cause they never show up on Sunday unlike you know who.

      Again, kudos for the piece, I don’t have the patience to write 4000 words.

      Reply

      Steven Meyers

      11 years ago

      1. What 3 year-old did the Photoshop on the Tiger wielding the axe photo?

      2.If Nike or adidas were concerned about what the 40 year-old fat guys thought about them, they would market pants that the fat guys could fit into. But they don’t.

      Reply

      Mike the duffer

      11 years ago

      I see comments regarding how great Nike is and yet in my golfing travels over the last 10 years at 100s of different courses, I recall very few golfers playing with Nike clubs. Shirts and shoes yes, but clubs no. I have even had the occasion where my playing partners had rented Nike clubs and they were totally surprised how hard they were to hit. The quality of their clubs has so much advertising cost built in (paying big bucks to TW and RM etc.) that you cannot deliver a product to market top quality with that much overhead. A golf club is an engineered product versus apparel that does not have that extensive engineering. There is a reason why TM, Titleist, Cobra, Callaway, etc are tops in the market and that is quality. Of course Nike may sell more in other foreign markets, although I was in Japan for 2 months and went to several courses and a monster driving range and did not see any Nike clubs being played by Japanese golfers. I agree with Phil’s long forgotten statement, that TW would have won many more majors had he stayed with Titleist. Also if their products were so good, then a player of Rory statue should be playing better than he does. I do believe that Nike needs TW and Rory more than they need them as they bring golfers to a inferior product and if they did not have him Nike would just be a cloths company.

      Reply

      CF

      11 years ago

      What everybody seems to be missing here is that if it’s good for Tiger Woods, that’s the very reason it’s not good for the 40-year old fat guy. In some respects, it’s exactly like shoes, and in others, not at all. Regardless of our size or weight or ability of any kind, all that is required to wear a shoe is our ability to put in on. What shoes have in common with golf clubs, however, is that size really does matter. Yes, we can wear any shoe and protect our feet from the elements, but the right size gives us potential to dance. We can play any club and chunk it around the golf course, but the right size, allows it to fly! The tools (our clubs) really do matter. In fact, any tool that requires reasonable execution of a motor skill (that would be any and ALL tools), the tool itself determines how effectively we use it. I’m not talking about tour players who hit a thousand balls a day and could probably play the game standing on their heads if they needed to, because they are that talented. Talent overcomes clubs that are the wrong size (Keegan Bradley, Matt Kuchar, Stewart Cink, Dustin Johnson come to mind). These guys are probably good enough to hit it with a broom stick. The tour player doesn’t allow the club to shape his swing, because his or her talent can beat it. The vast majority of amateurs, however cannot do what the tour player does. They don’t have the talent, the time to develop it, or the disposition to maintain it. Therefore, unlike the tour player who uses equipment and talent to shape shots, the poor 40 year old fat guy is forever relegated to having the very tools he uses, shape his. And since the entire golf industry wants us to believe that 95% of all players can play the same size golf club, what’s the fuss about? Can 95% of all people on the planet wear the same size shoe? I guess they could, but 94.9% of them would be walking funny. The equipment manufacturers could care less if their equipment actually allows someone to perform better, and the profession as a whole doesn’t want to believe that the club has anything to do with it. And since industry standards (for club length in particular) have not even come close to keeping up with the physical growth in the population, they are largely correct. Industry and professional “experts” suck up to each other and the fat guy loses. The tall fat guy has no chance. Nike, TaylorMade, Callaway…it makes no difference. The company with the largest marketing budget will win in the long run, and that is why Nike will be No. 1. Not because they are the best–they are clearly not. But because they have enough money to throw at the wall until the consumer won’t know the difference. Any brand in the world better known than the swoosh? I think not. Grow up people.

      Reply

      Dan

      11 years ago

      Two clubs, including my own, in our area haven’t sold one stick of Nike equipment since it hit the market in February. 1,200 members between the two clubs. It can’t be that much of an anomaly.

      Reply

      Philip Gullan

      11 years ago

      Tiger Woods is bigger than Nike Golf… Tiger Woods IS Golf (for the foreseeable future). Interesting read nonetheless.

      Reply

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      Tiger wood “is” not golf. Those who declare it so have no idea what golf “is.”

      Reply

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      …however, you’re right that he “is” the brand. He “is” the Nike _version_ of golf, and he “is” the modern professional game, in a sad and pathetic way.

      Reply

      jim

      11 years ago

      I know what Tiger Woods is and a lot of other people know what Tiger Woods is, and ‘Tiger Woods IS Golf’ is not what I’d be saying or hearing, and that’s for sure!

      AJ

      11 years ago

      From what I can find, Nike is up on sales, up on profit, up in stock price and generally on track.

      AJ

      Reply

      Steve P

      11 years ago

      Man, I think this is the hottest post for back and forth comments since: “GET UP! Taylormade is kicking your ASS!”
      http://mygolfspy.com/taylormade-is-kicking-your-ass/

      LOVE IT!

      Reply

      Dave S

      11 years ago

      Clearly, you are a member if the Tiger hater club you’re talking abt. I think substantially more people watch sports for what they are: athletic/skill competitions, and yes, to those who realize that’s all sports are, performance is all that matters. I could care less what Tiger or any other athlete does in their free time (as long as its not criminal). I’m not dating them, I’m watching them play a sport.

      Reply

      BJB

      11 years ago

      YES. Cant remember reading any articles about how Kobe Bryant, the well known expletive hurling rapist is killing Nike Basketball…and his products are absolute trash.

      Anyone who is their own person and secure in their beliefs watches sports for the competition, and couldnt give 2 sh*ts about what the overpaid egomaniacs do off the court/course/field.

      Read Haney’s book…he’s very clear that Tiger’s ability to quickly blow off steam after a bad shot via a club slam or curse word is essential in his ability to hyper-focus on the next shot as if nothing just happened. Sports is 99% about winning, if you dont like that then sell your TV and take up knitting.

      Reply

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      Dave S: Clearly, you are a member of the group of “golf fans” that dump a lot of money into the sport (which is all Nike and the PGA Tour care about) but who have no clue as to the game’s best traditions or why it should be any different than any other pro sport. You can be that ignorant if you want, of course. It’s your right. You can be any way you want.

      BJB: It’s hard to knowwhere to start with your idiocy. Kobe Bryant is a perfect example of exactly what I’m talking about, and I’m glad you brought him up. He’s either a rapist or just merely an adulterer who bought his way back into his wife’s favor. We wouldn’t even be having this conversation (you wouldn’t either, Dave S) if Woods were a molester. The truth is, you just don’t think cheating on your wife is all that big a deal, as long as you get to watch your big sports stars do their thing. Child abuse, yes. Cheating, no. If you don’t understand what that says about you, it is _you_ who are not the adult here. And if you’re using people’s reaction to the Bryant situation (who cares, as long as he can make a winning basket in the final seconds?) as justification for whatever Woods does in golf, that’s all anybody needs to know about what _you_ know about the game. It’s also a prime indication of just how golf has changed for the worse over the past 15-20 years.

      There is nothing about what I think that makes you more “your own person and secure in your beliefs” than I am, of course, merely because you declare it. I am exactly my own person and secure in my beliefs. You go with the larger part of the crowd that mindlessly repeats “all that matters is winning.” Who’s more his own person?

      As for Haney’s book and what Tiger “needs,” I don’t give two sh!ts what he needs. Part of the point of this game and its rules is that you adjust yourself to it, not the other way around. Even apart from that, being a decent person at all demands that you don’t do this in front of millions of kids you know are watching. Please, try to convince me that only Tiger, of all the #1 players in history, ought to draw no criticism for doing this. Yeah. He’s more competitive than, say, Hogan or Nicklaus, or Palmer. He needs to blow it off with profanity after a bad shot more than those guys did? Sure he does.

      What you’re saying here is a massively pathetic example of what is wrong not only with the professional golf world but with sports in general today. If you have to be told why golf in particular is not “99% about winning,” or why there is no amount or percentage that golf is “about winning” but rather that this is on a different scale from the actual purpose of the game and its best traditions, if you can’t understand why a person can be at least as competitive while demonstrating self-restraint and decency, then you don’t even belong in this conversation. You’ll continue to believe that golf is the game you’ve been playing and will play the rest of your life, and you won’t have a clue how wrong you are. That’s punishment enough for the wrongness of your thinking and your stupidity. Meanwhile, come compete with me anytime, in golf or anything else (we can start with basketball or tennis, if you want). I’ll show you “knitting,” bud.

      Joel Serra

      11 years ago

      You are living in a fantasy world. Do you really think that the kings of golf from days gone by were all faithful to their wives? They lived (and played) in a world where the media played by a different set of rules than they do today. The private lives of sportsmen and politicians (and many others) were off limits. The same is true with the sacred rules of golf. Did players call violations on themselves? Yes. Always? No, It would be hard to compare, but I suspect that violations were more common in that era than today. High definition video equipment has probably done more to drive honesty than the grand honor of the gentlemen’s game ever did. Moreover, in that “honorable” era, clubs routinely denied membership to Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Jews and women – practices that did more to dishonor our game than anything Tiger Woods ever did. Sorry, but those repugnant practices trump any notion of gentlemanly beneficence. A jackass with good table manners is still a jackass..

      I’ll happily take today’s players, today’s equipment (as ably reviewed on this site) and today’s golf courses over any nostalgic notion of the better days of this sport or our larger community.

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      It is you, I’m afraid, who is posing a “fantasy world” of your own speculation and “suspcion.” The actual evidence says otherwise, although I don’t think it’ll matter to you, because your conclusion must be protected no matter what.

      What an indefensible mass of glurge, beginning with one of my personal favorites of those who absolutely _must_ pose Woods as no worse than the great players of the past.

      The way this works is like this: I can’t imagine somebody actually being faithful to his wife for decades. (That may be due to sheer adolescent-style ignorance; more often it’s because somebody grew up in this era of postmodernist antiheroism, where nobody is capable of more than sporadic good acts, if that.) Therefore, since I can’t imagine it, I’m going to speculate about the opposite, prompted by somebody like Tiger Woods, who humiliated and betrayed his wife and children. I _must_ find others to be similar to him. So I’ll just speculate and say it’s true, even though I have not one shred of evidence to back it up. It’s chickensh!t, sure. But I’m gonna do it anyway. I’m just going to say it must be true.

      Now I have to explain that lack-of-evidence problem, but that’s easy enough. I’m not a journalist (you’re not, are you?), so I’ll just speculate some more about eras where all these players were totally protected by the media. Then I’ll say I “suspect” players called rules violations on them less then than they do now. Speculation and suspicion, in the internet age, are plenty enough. As long as I can make an assertion, then it’s up to you guys to prove me wrong. Isn’t that how it works now?

      Oh, and I’ll throw the race-and-gender thing in, too. Because nobody else in society was excluding people on the basis of race and gender stereotypes, or because of a more generalized classism (which was really the problem, by the way). It wasn’t part of the general culture. It was only golf that did this.

      There, now. I’ve brought down Nicklaus and Hogan and Jones and all of them to the level of Woods. That’s how it goes in the world of zero evidence.

      It’s ridiculous, is what it is.

      I worked as a sportswriter and columnist for some time. I knew guys who had been around the business for a very long time when I first got in. Every last one of them would’ve given their left nut to have broken a story about a Nicklaus or a Palmer sleeping with somebody who wasn’t his wife. I mean every one. You are just simply dead wrong on this point. It would’ve been a career-maker to break any story like that. If you think sportswriters “protected” these guys in general (I’m not talking about one here and one there who was a friend to some athlete — ask me sometime and I’ll try to explain anecdotal evidence to you, and how it dominates the internet age), you are too naive to be commenting.

      Do you really think your speculation about how the sports media were in previous eras has any relationship to reality whatsoever? Jack Nicklaus has spent five decades in the public eye without one hint of marital scandal. Do you want to speculate about him specifically, or just about players in general?

      I’m not saying for one second that there were literally no instances of adultery, ever, in professional golf before the current era. I’m saying that if it occurred, and if it were made public, there is no way it would result in a majority of celebrity-obsessed fans giving the guy a pass. Do you really mean to say that you think standards of fidelity have not eroded over the past century or so? That the prevailing sexual ethic now is not different than it was in, say, 1950, with regard to whether a person caught in such a scandal would have been ruined in the public eye? Don’t even come back with garbage about how there were instances of cheating then, or how the world wasn’t literally perfect. I’m talking about an entire culture, not “instances.” I’m talking about a current culture that largely believes there is nothing wrong with ignoring whatever else a player does off the field, as long as he’s a “winner” on the field. (But really, even this is limited mostly to things like substance abuse, adultery, and vehicle violations, isn’t it? Do you really think that if Woods had abused children, people would be cheering him on? Some probably would. But would most? What about if he had murdered somebody? Would they be upset and annoyed that he wasn’t free, so they have to go without their fix?) There is no particular reason for this widespread belief, other than having it drummed into our heads long enough, and if you think money and marketing don’t have everything to do with that, again…too naive. It wasn’t so in previous generations, particularly not so with golf.

      Whether you want to admit it or not, whether you want to invent some fantasy world or not, we’ve gone from a guy like Nicklaus, who quit smoking on the course because he thought it looked terrible on camera and he didn’t want to set a bad example for kids, to a guy like Woods who can’t be bothered to stop saying “f#ck” when he knows millions of kids are watching. We went from a guy like Hogan who would throw himself across his wife’s body to save her life in a head-on collision with a bus, to a guy like Woods, who spent several years banging every cocktail waitress and aspiring porn star he could get his hands on.

      That’s an ugly truth for you, isn’t it? So you just ignore it. You speculate about ways in which that just can’t be true. These guys must have cheated on their wives. They must have cheated on the course. My hero did, so they must have. Defenders of Woods et al. are like the adolescent who has to justify his own behavior by imagining every other person on the planet to be as bad or worse.

      Now, as for race and gender: That _is_ the bad side of the history of the game, of course. When I refer to the “best traditions” of the game, it’s specifically to exclude this problem and to acknowledge that not all the game’s traditions are good ones. But criticism of those practices really is criticism of the culture around them at the time. As wrong and indefensible as it is, it’s unfair to act like the golf world was doing something uniquely bad. And your pithy little metaphor about “table manners” is just a straw man. Being faithful to your wife isn’t “table manners.” We’re not talking about fru-fru etiquette. Curbing your profanity in front of children isn’t “table manners.” The fact that golf produced people who, despite not having evolved at a much faster rate than the culture around them, still were fundamentally decent and honorable regarding other important areas of their lives ought to matter. In fact, I think you know it _does_ matter, which is why you, like so many, have to invent this imaginary “they must have all slept around too, and they were probably cheating even more” kind of fantasy.

      As for whom and what you will “take,” I don’t even know what you’re talking about, really. I mean, if you want to get into an analysis of why this generation of players is not particularly better than any of the previous generations, we can do that. It has to do with yardages, records, comparative scores, average irons hit into greens, course conditioning, etc. It’ll take some patience, but we can get there. What I’m talking about isn’t “nostalgia,” no matter how much you or anybody else desperately needs to attribute it that way.

      At any rate, I’m perfectly willing to accept that today’s players are skilled, if competitively soft compared to the top players of previous eras.

      My guess is that you will not want to do this, because don’t want your bubble burst. You like believing what you believe, and it’s going to be resistant to evidence. Your conclusion is already reached, and the fantasy structure is in place to protect it.

      I don’t know why you’re bringing courses and so forth into it, either. Courses are tremendously better-conditioned now than they used to be, for one thing. Do you think I’m denigrating all players, all courses, all equipment, what? It is true that game-improvement aspects of equipment today keep a lot of marginal pros in the money pool (exactly as Nicklaus said it would, incidentally). I do wish that weren’t so. The game loses something when instead of learning a skill to a certain level, you just buy a club that fixes it for you. I don’t know if you’re aware of the various mini-experiments that have been done with modern players trying out the previous-era clubs and balls, but it gets pretty ugly. Or rather, the separation between guys with real skill and guys with clubs that cover up marginal skills becomes apparent very quickly, and distances shrink instantly to about what they were in the previous era, or less. But there would always be players of real skill who could play the tougher equipment. You’ll never see this, of course, because the PGA Tour has no interest in doing anything that contradicts its own marketing of current players as vastly superior to players from previous generations.

      It’s your business which group of players you would “take,” of course. Take who you want. Live in your illusion if you want. Speculate about how players must have been and what they must have done, rather than going with the evidence about how they actually were. But this speculation is only sham rationality, however articulately put. And you can trivialize a serious, well-researched opinion as “nostalgia” all you want, but that doesn’t make it so.

      As for me, I’ll “take” the idea of golf that _does_ treat it as something different from and better than other sports, as not just another pro sport, where we get lectured about how the player’s character is none of our business, it only matters whether he wins or loses. (Really? If he’s a child molester, you’re going to cheer him on, because he’s skilled?) I do think golf ought to be better than that. It should matter who you are and what your character is. Not to perfection (look up “false dichotomy,” if you don’t already know what it is), but decency. If Woods had cursed once and then apologized, of course that would’ve been a different matter than his arrogance in refusing to adjust his behavior and speech in the way every other great player in the history of the game has done. Players like Jones and Palmer have written about problems with temper early in their lives, but the point is that they didn’t defend themselves for it or make a virtue of it, or give the world the finger over it and then get celebrated for having “attitude” and being “so competitive.” They were competitive, all right. Whether you or anybody else wants to admit it, they were every bit as competitive as Woods. At least. But they also knew, as adult human beings in eras when people were expected to act like adults, that showing self-restraint was not a hindrance to being competitive.

      Come to think of it, if you can read Bobby Jones and Harvey Penick, and still believe you like this crop of players better than the spirit of the game that seems to be lost now at the professional level, then I guess you really are happy with this diminished version of the game. Some of us aren’t.

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      Also, re equipment, just so there’s no misunderstanding: I am not saying, and have never said, that today’s equipment is of lesser quality. I’d say it’s generally of _better_ quality, in fact. I don’t think there’s any way a good forging from Mizuno or Miura or Titleist or any of several other manufacturers is inferior to the very best forgings from previous eras, and IMHO they’re superior in both design and quality. Same for balls, which are much more likely to be consistent (especially to go very predictable distances) and stay round.

      I _do_ think there’s something wrong when, at 52, I can drive the ball easily 35-40 yards farther than I did with persimmon 30 years ago (I was a plus-2 at the time), with no swing change to explain it (maybe refinement, but that’s a lot of mileage to offset any minor improvements). With some drivers, the distance gap is more than that. It’s absurd. What is “good” about this? Same for irons: Should I be able to hit a 6-iron 15 yards farther now than I did then? Sure, when the iron that says “6” on the bottom has a loft closer to what “5” was then, and other refinements give us the extra half-club or so. But how to account for three decades of aging that don’t show in the ball flight or performance? If it’s something about the club, which I think accounts for all or nearly all of it, how does this make the competitive game “better”?

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      Here’s a thought: To the extent that anybody buys golf equipment because of a spokesperson, they do it because they find something fundamentally likeable about the guy. The vast majority of players who would buy Nike equipment because of Woods’ endorsement won’t play the equipment he plays anyway, or even a generic version of it. They’ll play the average player’s Nike equipment because they like Woods (or whoever).

      Here’s the problem: No matter how much the general sports media or big general sports marketers like Nike tell us that all that matters is the skill and accomplishments of a player, and not character or behavior (because they matter less in other sports, quite apparently), there is always a large subset of people who don’t buy that. Many of these people are pretty pissed about being given the finger and told “winning takes care of everything” (and, by implication, there’s something wrong with you if you think it does).

      Even Nike realizes that behavior matters, of course. Chances are Woods et al. have moral turpitude clauses (or their equivalents) in their contracts. And I have a hard time believing they’d have been quite as enthusiastic to sign him for all that money if he’d been in the middle of the public adultery problem when negotiations were going on. Fact is, most people realize character and behavior _do_ matter. No? Try selling equipment based on the endorsement of a really skillful, highly accomplished child molester. We’re talking only about a difference of degree here. If we hadn’t become so conditioned to allowing our pro athletes their infidelities, this would be clearer.

      In short: As long as Woods behaves like an arrogant a$$hole so much of the time, it’s not going to help Nike, no. And to the extent that they have him as their main guy, the one they put so much weight on, they might need to change something about that, yeah.

      Reply

      Dave S

      11 years ago

      You want Nike to be more “genuine”, but in the same piece day they should paint Tigers old driver red to fool the consumer. I applaud Nike for not stooping to TMs level.

      It just takes time. Nike is still very young in the industry.

      Reply

      BJB

      11 years ago

      How about players like Snedeker and DL3 playing drivers made by TM but carrying them with their Bridgestone head covers on? It’s hilarious…and I happen to think that the J40 is a better driver. It’s all about marketing and $$

      Reply

      Hiduce

      11 years ago

      I take issue with this article and here is why…..
      It perpetuates the MYTH that golfers NEED to constantly game the newest equipment to be a better golfer. If this huge lie perpetuated not only by the huge marketing machines of the various manufacturers, but also by websites like this were true, then we would all be posting lower scores year after year, and by now anyone playing the game since say the mid-2000’s should be hitting 500 yard drives no problem. But we don’t… because it’s all a bunch of marketing BS. Why do people call a two year old driver a “dinosaur”? Is a two year old baseball bat, soccer ball or tennis racquet a dinosaur? Of course not. Are blades really harder to hit than cavities? Maybe, but the sad truth is you can only market so much “technology” from a blade. A cavity on the other hand, gives lots more opportunity to talk about upgrades that you “need” like polymer slots and inserts, moving weight around from here to there, then there back to here, maybe a little tungsten and some inverted cones? How about some “cells” or some “X” technology Sure why not! sounds good and we can get a pro to play it too! Heck, if the best in the world can play it that it should “help” me right? Never mind that they get all their gear free and could use pretty much any club and do well. The other day at Golf Galaxy they had a set of nike VR blades on the used rack. I hit them alongside the new woo-hoo rocketbladez and guess what… the rocketbladez went about 8 yards farther, as they should since they are lofted stronger… but dispersion was the same and the blades felt WAY BETTER on contact, smother in the swing and just more pleasurable to hit.
      Take two golfers of equal skill and give one the $1400 set of rocketblades/kbs/golf prides/stage two driver that taylormade would have you think you NEED to be good, and give the other guy some 4-year old blades for $150 and $1,000 worth of instruction and playing time… who is going to come out with the lower score? How about we make that the next my golf spy comparison? I guarantee all these new gear junkies will be surprised.

      Reply

      Steve P

      11 years ago

      maybe you should checkout the hot new website: my-golf-lesson-spy.com
      It’ll be your new favorite!
      You do realize this site is primarily dedicated toward new equipment technologies and products, right?

      Reply

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      So right, Hiduce.

      And yeah, Steve P — I’m pretty sure he realizes this site has to do with new technology. What he posted is directly on-point to that, unless you think anybody on a golf equipment site should be prohibited from questioning the degree to which that equipment should be expected to help a person’s game.

      Reply

      Steve P

      11 years ago

      I never said he wasn’t right in his analysis. Of course equipment is overrated, of course practice and lessons would benefit more golfers in bettering their scores. I’m betting that most golfers on here know that. The whole big-golf-company “new equipment” and slick marketing thing is really pretty absurd, but that’s what makes it so fascinating. It says a lot about our American culture in general: quick fix, I want it now, gotta be cool and play what the “pro’s play”, whoever shouts the loudest gets the business. Again, it’s fascinating.
      For him to assume that we all think that new equipment is the one cure for our games is insulting. He’s the same type of guy that walks into a bar and goes up to a stranger that’s smoking and says, “you know those things will kill you right? You should quit.”
      No sh_t? I had no idea! Thanks buddy.

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      I see your point, for sure. I don’t think he was implying that we “all” think that. It certainly is a pervasive attitude, but you’re right to say it’s not universal, and it’s probably distinctly less prevalent among the crowd on this discussion list than in the wider group of casual players. I just took it as a point about the uberhype and excessive expense that keeps these profit margins and quarterly earnings going with only a marginal and distant relationship to actual improvements in and enjoyment of the game, which I thought was a valid thing to say. Then again, I’ve seen my share of people who seem to enjoy shelling out the yearly two thousand bucks or so just so what’s in their own bags will trump what’s in everybody else’s. To somebody like that, I guess status and spokesperson appeal might mean something, and companies like Nike love ’em, for sure.

      Hiduce

      11 years ago

      Most of the time when people bag on “American culture” they do so out of total ignorance of others and you, obviously, are continuing that trend. Not only does my comment say NOTHING about “American culture,” but the complete opposite is actually true. Do you think the European market or Japanese markets don’t want to play cool equipment or look for a quick fix to their game? A more appropriate observation on “American culture” compared to those around the world might be our need to stick with “conforming equipment.” Everyone wants to play the “easiest” equipment… but it needs to “conform.” What a joke. That’s like saying you only want to play basketball against pros, but not the best ones, just the very worst pros out there. You’re still going to get rocked. In Japan they don’t care for a second if something is “conforming” or not. They, I would say appropriately, will game any club if it will help them play better and ENJOY the game more. They are looking for, as you put it “a quick fix.” Sorry to so utterly shoot your self-hating anti-american theory in the ass but you stuck it out there so far i couldent resist.

      Furthermore, who is this “we all”? Why are you taking personal offence to a comment I made about this article? It’s got nothing to do with you buddy.
      AS far as calling me “the type of guy that bla bla bla… ” It’s ok, you guys are called trolls for a reason.

      And to you Stephenf, thank you for getting the point. I’m sure we all love this website, it is for that reason there’s no problem with us holding their feet to the fire once in a while…. Maybe tiger shouldn’t be expected to play a damn cavity back driver and Nike should do more than make something a little smaller and slap a “pro” or “tour” onto something and call it different.

      Steve P

      11 years ago

      Wow. Where to begin?
      Let’s start with some “snippets” from your whining first-post tantrum that led me to post my initial short “smart-alecky” response:
      “I take issue with this article…”
      – Nice opening line. I instantly knew we were dealing with a clown from right there. Ooooh, somebody’s taking ISSUE!
      “It perpetuates the MYTH that golfers NEED to constantly game the newest equipment”
      -How does THIS article perpetuate “this MYTH”, more than any other article on this site?
      “this huge lie perpetuated…by websites like this”
      -Why are you visiting a site that, you say, perpetuates lies? And “HUGE LIES” at that?
      “it’s all a bunch of marketing BS”
      -ALL of “it” is lies? Again, why are you on this site? This website is mostly about new equipment, right?
      “Are blades really harder to hit than cavities? Maybe…”
      -Maybe? MAYBE? NEWS FLASH!…YES, unequivocally, blades are less forgiving than cavity backs. Are you really uncertain about this? Or am I misinterpreting what you meant by “harder”? MAYBE huge tree limbs overhang every fairway of the courses you play at, requiring low rockets? Or, MAYBE you’re a plus 1 handicap world-class ball striker, My mistake. (Or MAYBE you’re an idiot.)
      (At this point I couldn’t believe I was WASTING my time reading this post, but I had to trudge onward.)
      “polymer slots and insert…a little tungsten…inverted cones…“cells” or some “X” technology”
      -Dude, we get it. Let’s get to your point already.
      “the best in the world…get all their gear free…”
      -Uh, really? WOW, I never, ever, knew that. Thanks for the heads up buddy. (sarcasm)
      (Actually, many of the “best in the world” get PAID to use their gear, which is even better than free, but that’s nit-picking, sorry)
      “(the best in the world)…could use pretty much any club and do well.”
      -GET OUTTA’ HERE! I can’t believe it! NOBODY has EVER pointed that out to me before! Man, all of us on here owe you big time for that pearl of wisdom. (double-sarcasm)
      “The other day at Golf Galaxy…”
      -Why would you ever step foot in a store that only helps perpetuate the “lies”? Well, maybe you were there for lessons? Or maybe you just go there to look at the used stuff…
      “nike VR blades…used”
      -BINGO! You found the used section!
      “I hit them alongside the new woo-hoo rocketbladez…”
      -WHY ARE YOU WASTING YOUR PRECIOUS TIME TRYING CLUBS FROM THE BIGGEST “LIARS” & “PERPETUATERS” OF “MARKETING BS” IN THE GAME? Are you a masochist? You may really need some help.
      “the rocketbladez went about 8 yards farther, as they should since they are lofted stronger… but dispersion was the same”
      -How do you know this? Were you hitting outside? Ohhhh, they have a simulator? SIMULATORS ARE JUST MORE OF THE “MYTHS” and “LIES” and “BS” that Golf Galaxy uses to convince people of what they “need.” I can’t believe you’re gullible enough to trust a simulator. (triple sarcasm)
      “give the other guy some 4-year old blades”
      -Why not some 40-year old blades? What’s the difference really? It’s all “marketing BS.” (sarcasm)
      “who is going to come out with the lower score?”
      Oooooh, I can’t wait to find out! The anticipation is killing me!
      “I GUARANTEE ALL THESE NEW GEAR JUNKIES WILL BE SURPRISED.”
      You know, as dumb as the rest of your entire post is, this is the line that I take the most offense at. Why wouldn’t I be insulted? This is the line that let me know that we were dealing with a tool. (& your second post just confirmed that rock-solid)

      Hey “buddy”, I AM a “new gear junkie.” I like coming to this site fairly often, and finding out about new equipment. I’ll read what everybody has to think about the stuff. I comment on the new stuff. I try all the new stuff when it launches (and sometimes well before it launches.) I like being ahead of the curve on what’s coming out. Do I believe that every new driver model launched is really 12 yards longer than last years? No, we’re not idiots. Got it?

      So, let’s break it down…”I guarantee” + “all these” + “new gear junkies” + “will be” + “surprised.”
      “I guarantee” What are you putting behind your guarantee? Nothing. You got nothing. You’re full of it. You just bloviate.
      “all these” What does “all” mean? It means the entire amount of, each and every, with no exceptions. “these” And what does “these” mean? It’s is a form of “this” used in plural reference. And “this”, in this case, refers to “persons present, near or referred to.” So “all” plus “these” refers to “every person on this site” that is a “new gear junkie.”
      “Surprised” -means to be taken unaware, shocked, astonished.
      So, are you getting it yet? You finished your stupid rant by stating that, should your “comparison” ever take place (which it won’t), EVERY ONE OF US ON THIS SITE THAT’S INTO NEW GEAR WOULD BE SHOCKED IF THE GOLFER PLAYING BLADES WERE TO COME OUT ON TOP. So yeah, I should be offended. Hell, we ALL should be offended. We are dealing with a guy that wastes his time on a site about equipment instead of practicing and taking lessons, he isn’t sure if cavity backs are more forgiving than blades, he loves to state the obvious about the skills of the best players in the world, says that this website perpetuates lies, and thinks that ALL new gear junkies are morons.
      So genius, tell me… Is smoking really bad for me?
      Then you went and responded:
      “Why are you taking personal offence to a comment I made about this article? It’s got nothing to do with you buddy.”
      -I just explained to you 10 seconds ago how your comment referred to all of us on here. That is why I suggested a different website for you to go to.
      “Not only does my comment say NOTHING about “American culture,”
      -Tell me, where in my second response do I suggest that YOU actually comment specifically about our American culture? I didn’t. Read it again. I commented on “American culture.” Talk about a “bag out of ignorance.”
      And when something is considered “fascinating” to someone, does that suggest one has negative perceptions about it? No. To say that any of the four examples I gave aren’t true would be a lie. Americans are what WE are. We fall for marketing hype. Big deal. Get over it. It’s the greatest country on earth.
      And I have a slight suspicion that you aren’t even “American” given your British/Canadian spelling of “offence.” So for you to suggest that I am “self-hating” or “anti-American” is an even bigger insult. Eh?
      Then you go and spout off about Europe and Japan, blah, blah, blah. And about non-conforming equipment, and playing basketball, but only with the “worst pros”. Then you talk about “shooting something in the ass.” Dude, enough already. Maybe you’ve just gotta get _aid?

      So, 2 suggestions:
      1. The next time your own troll self decides to rant about how today’s golf equipment is purely “marketing BS” and how this site merely spreads “lies”, I’d refrain from making generalizations about everybody on here.
      2. If you are going to respond to this, go buy a printer if you don’t already have one, print all of our back-and-forth out, lay it all out on a table, and highlight or circle the problems you have with my comments so you can use them for reference while you type your response. That way you can see all the stupid things you’ve already said, and so you won’t need to “misquote” anything I’ve said.
      Now I’m gonna go have a cigarette.

      Brian

      11 years ago

      I have never understood why people make club purchases so emotional? “I will never buy Nike because of Tiger…Blah, blah blah.” Why cant you stand over a club, and if you like the looks of it, take it to a range or launch monitor and if the numbers are better than another, buy it. It’s the same thing with the whole Chick Fil A-Gay marriage thing. If you like their chicken then eat their sandwich and dont worry about non sandwich related things.

      Reply

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      I can tell you why in my case. For a long time, even though I was no Woods fan (a fan of his dedication, discipline, and skill on the course, yes), I seriously thought about switching to Nike for competition. Their good-player stuff is really, really good. It was only after this “winning takes care of everything” garbage that I finally crossed them off the list. It wasn’t the mere fact of Woods being on their staff, in other words; it was what the company itself did in its own marketing campaign, and the fact that if I bought from them or even did a sponsorship deal with them eventually, I would be subsidizing that company and therefore tacitly approving. Sometimes it matters, and sometimes you have to take some kind of stand for your own conscience. When did that suddenly become unthinkable?

      Reply

      Robert

      11 years ago

      PR Disasters:
      1) Tigers press conference… Who ever had that idea should be fired
      2) “Winning takes care of everything” Is only true, if its not said in a commercial. How arrogant!
      3) Earl Woods commercial on Tiger… What were they thinking when they thought of that idea.

      Tim

      11 years ago

      That Covert driver just isn’t that good. I want to like it, most of my bag is Nike anyway, but tried both versions multiple times with different shafts and still 20 yards short of the TM stage 2 and TE xcg6.

      Reply

      cdvilla

      11 years ago

      As someone who plays Nike irons and wedges, I took a lot of time during my last purchase to figure out what I wanted. I think that Nike’s forged stuff absolutely as good as any other clubmaker and not the most expensive. As for the points made in the article, I do think that Tiger’s reticence to play the “state of the art” Nike equipment HURTS THE BRAND and undermines the message of Nike Golf. At the very least they could have given his old driver the red crown to reinforce the brand. Also, they used their current Nike Golf stars doing the “Tiger wedge bounce” in the newest commercial? I don’t think is smacks for “fresh” to reuse this imagery. The first Rory/Tiger ad was great but now Rory’s gone underground and the other faces on the staff just don’t move the needle.

      I may lean toward Nike fanboy (although my woods/hybrids are Adams) but I agree with assertions stated in the article.

      Reply

      Alex Dr

      11 years ago

      Guys, i think the point is with this thing about the No. 1 Company in golf, is that TM has the advantage in terms of marketing on tour (the worlds biggest stage for product exposure), an this advantage (at least over nike) is the flexibility over the contract with staffers. Let My explain:

      For nike staffers its niker gear head to toes, no banners, no caps with other sponsors, and in some some times they enforce them to use 14 nike clubs in their bags and this means a lot of money. (its curious how they dont get they superstars (Tiger/Rory) to carry a nike a staff bag, a huge piece of exposure on Tour.

      For Taylor Made staffers its a different story, theres only a few of them who use an adidas/asworth Taylor Made combo, and a bunch of them that endorse the woods, and only the woods, and in almost they use a TM woods/staff bag/hat getting the maximun exposure for the buck, and thats how they can have a lot of guys “using” their equipment without expending a lot of money like Nike.

      IMO its a very flexible aproach and a way to put your eggs in a buch of baskets.

      Reply

      Robert

      11 years ago

      Nike stock in the last 6 months has gone from $49 to $65, and thats what shareholders want to hear. Tony, Its all about the money.

      Reply

      Don Price

      11 years ago

      Nike’s retail share is going to improve when they come up with better equipment! As a lower handicap players who plays with two distinctly different groups of people (my low handicap golf buddies, & my higher handicap friends) nobody in either group is dreaming about adding any of their gear to their sets…

      Reply

      Hula_rock

      11 years ago

      Come up with better equipment ? I don’t get it. “pound for pound” Nike equipment holds it’s own with gear targeted for the lower handicap players like yourself.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      11 years ago

      The reality is that the early stuff wasn’t that good. Golfers have long memories, so the perception among some that Nike’s stuff isn’t that good, persists. It’s wrong, but it’ still out there.

      Hula_rock

      11 years ago

      Nike came into the market and had a long uphill battle with TMaG, Titleist , Ping, etc. Golfers in the past, well, today’s golfer too for that matter, are loyal to their Brand. As “Ugly” as the next driver may be, brand loyalist will buy it no matter how it performs on the course. Only until recent years the industry has started to see a shift, golfers started picking up “other” brands because it performs better on the course. With the advent of blogs, Internet forums, e.g. MSG the average golfer is beginning to open their eyes putting different brands of clubs into their bag. Nike did have some early flops, yes, but they also had early success, Ignite driver and Pro Combos.

      Golfers may have long memories, but in my honest opinion they are missing out. There is some great equipment out there that can improve their game, Swoosh or not.

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      That’s true, but what Covey says is true also. I can tell you that among better players, there was an impression for a long time that Nike was being really arrogant and presumptious by acting like it was just a “marketing” thing to move into the golf world and elbow out some of the longstanding venerable names there. Some people have gotten over that, some haven’t. It’s absolutely true that their good-player equipment is very, very good now and has been for a while. Not sure about their average-player stuff. Doesn’t matter to me, because I’m not playing it. I wouldn’t take it even as a sponsorship now, if I were still playing competitively, not after the way they’ve extended their middle finger to anybody who thinks Woods should be held to the same standards of behavior and speech as any other great player in the history of the game.

      Robert

      11 years ago

      Tony, I think you said it all in the beginning;
      “Maybe I’m wrong, but as a guy on the outside with a little bit of inside knowledge, it sure looks like the engine powering Nike Golf’s breakout season has stalled.”

      Yes, looks like you are wrong with very little knowledge.

      RSW
      New York

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      11 years ago

      You clearly have an opinion that differs from my own. That’s cool, but you know…at least back it up the way Joe did.

      Reply

      Robert

      11 years ago

      OK, Nike has gone from $49 to $65 (32 1/2%) a share over the last six months., and those are the numbers shareholders like.

      RSW
      New York

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      Nike Golf, or just Nike overall? If it’s the latter, without other evidence, how does this indicate that whatever they’re doing with Woods is working?

      Robert

      11 years ago

      Shareholders care about profits, that’s the only bottom line that matters, and I personally don’t think Nike would have had the gain it has had without TW.

      Mr_Theoo

      11 years ago

      I might be in the minority here but I love nike equipment. Like Tony said Nike has brand recognition especially for the newer golfers like myself. I only started playing last year so I didn’t come in with any preconceived notions about nike golf equipment but because I have played basketball for the majority of my life as well as have many many pairs of nike and Jordan shoes and apparel I wanted to stick with Nike because it was familiar to me. What I think nike needs to do is sort of what Cobra is doing and try to get the new and young golfers because a lot of the older golfers aren’t going to give them a fair shot.

      Reply

      Steve P

      11 years ago

      Nike has been focusing on the “younger” golfer from day one. It’s been a disaster.
      AND you don’t want the focus of your brand to be perceived as being toward “newer” golfers; they’re too often value oriented. Sure, they’ll buy your starter set, but they always move on to a “premium” brand when they “start taking the game seriously.”
      Just ask Wilson how that’s worked out for them over the last few decades.

      Reply

      Joe

      11 years ago

      Wilson has more major wins than any other manufacturer!!!!

      You’re telling me the 7 major wins of Gene Sarazen in the 1920s and 1930s don’t factor into your club purchases today?

      Wilson = Clueless

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      Wilson has made some really good player’s clubs over the past few years, and a good ball as well. More like average player = clueless. It didn’t used to take multimillion-dollar marketing campaigns for golfers to know what was good equipment and what wasn’t.

      Also: To the extent that marketing departments continue to assume that the younger market must not care about gutter behavior and gutter language (or that caring about it is a sign of “oldness”), and therefore that they’re fine with shoving a guy like Woods into our faces and giving the finger to anyone who disapproves of anything he does, they’re always going to lose a certain subset of the market. They’re coming at golf like it’s just another pro sport, where character, behavior, and speech just don’t matter (to most fans, at least). Gravity may be on their side, since so many people are going that way now, but it sucks, and there will always be some of us who resist it.

      Steve P

      11 years ago

      Wilson DID equal Clueless for a pretty long time in the 90’s and 00’s. You can’t slap the same brand name AND brand logo on an $800 set of irons at a country club, and on a $200 complete starter set and bag at wal-mart, and expect that the image and panache of your premium stuff won’t be hurt by it. That’s the mistake Wilson made. They finally figured that out though. That’s why Wilson Staff’s current logo and the regular Wilson logo look completely different now. I still think they need their own version of “Pinnacle” from a brand standpoint though. The word “Titleist” appears nowhere on Pinnacle products and yet virtually every golfer knows the 2 brands are related. It boosts the sales of “Pinnacle” products without hurting both the sales and the brand of “Titleist.” It’s a hard thing to pull off really.
      (I think TM is already starting to try to do that with Adams: a $229 2013 model driver before June for example!?! TM knew that their own brand’s days were becoming numbered if they continued to have 8 models of drivers at 8 descending price points, all the time, in every store. I think that’s one of the many reason’s they are having a down year in drivers, aside from the late spring and the 3rd-grader paint jobs. Why would any weekend golfer spend 400 bucks for this year’s “white driver” R1 when a 2011 “white driver” is on sale right next to it for only $129 – SF 2.0? “Hey, I just wanted a white driver! Whoo-hoo!”
      They snatched up the “Adams” brand at a decent price (with Adidas’ money) with a plan already in place. Look for Adams to be TM’s “Pinnacle” before too long.)

      BUT… Wilson Staff’s new guy in charge of club design (since 2011), Michael Vrska, is one sharp iron-designing cookie. Their new forged proto irons look like they’ll be winners when launched. I do think Wilson Staff IS on its way back up, but it is a darn crowded playing field, and climbing back up always takes a lot more time and effort than falling down.

      Joe

      11 years ago

      Agree a lot with both stephenf and Steve P. Unfortunately quality of product has little to do with what sells. If Wilson made a miracle club that every amateur would benefit from and tour players couldn’t lose with it, it would have little effect on the game and market. Brand recognition is key and that has been the name of the game over the past couple decades. Image over substance. I remember growing up and playing what made sense for my game, that has completely gone out the window. I want new, shiny, and BIG brand name. Sure I will get fit and have the correct specs, but I wouldn’t even try a lot of companies clubs strictly because they aren’t mainstream enough. Marketing machine has molded me into the (unfortunately) typical consumer. I don’t want Wilson because the only Wilson staffer that has done anything substantial in recent memory is Padraig Harrington and his name is hard to find on PGA Tour leaderboards and/or just doesn’t excite me as a fan, at all. If I had a Wilson driver in the bag my buddies would give me the bad kind of “What is THAT thing?” Nobody wants that.

      To Steve P, I’ve heard Adams and TaylorMade, although under one umbrella, are operating independently. So when Adams lowered the Super S $70 really quickly (great driver at $229 btw) it was in reaction to the news that TaylorMade was dropping Stage 2, not mandated by big TaylorMade. So there is still some competition between the brands, which seems really counter productive to me. Also, interesting to see TaylorMade go back to black with this new version R1. Seem to be back pedaling on their success with white over the past few years. Searching for that shot in the arm they need to make the year a success (by their standards).

      pablo

      11 years ago

      Well said about the Nike part. Wilson has a lot of branding with ‘that guy’ who has softened the ‘startup golfer’ focus, at least in my mind.

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      Nike equipment is generally very good. Their forged player’s irons are really first-rate. I just can’t bring myself to spend one more cent on them after their “winning takes care of everything” garbage, especially when there are other alternatives just as good or better.

      Reply

      Steve P

      11 years ago

      Let me admit first that I’ve never met her, and she might be brilliant as you suggest, but the fact that this Cindy Davis is still in charge is an absolute joke. She has had the #1 player in the game for eons, tons of major wins by him, AND their brand has won a bunch of majors with other players too over the years: Trevor Immelman, Stewart Cink, Charl Schwarzel, Lucas Glover. That they have barely even cracked the club market in market-share is absurd.
      I’m betting if “she” was a “he”, Davis would have been gone a long time ago. It’s golf’s version of political correctness run amok.

      Reply

      Steve P

      11 years ago

      I mean, how do even get to run Nike Golf from the outset after leading an industry ‘giant’ like Nancy Lopez/Women’s Golf Unlimited? wow!

      Reply

      Michi

      11 years ago

      You are obviously a sexist and a speaking out of ignorance. If you know anything about Nike they don’t care about keeping someone because of sex. You should speak from a place of knowledge, or better yet just not speak. I looked at your other posts and you’re just a troll that starts arguments. Get a life.

      Pato Madrazo

      11 years ago

      For many years I’ve struggled with drivers, as a weekend player…….. recently on a one day trip to visit friends near Santa Ana, CA, I paid a visit to my friends at Roger Dunn…… after testing some new clubs, I found a used Long Tom 2 wood by Cobra………. and could hardly believe the results……….. this is the best “quasi” driver I ever hit …………… last week I was hiting 240-260 yards off the tee………. maybe not the 300 plus of the “tour” , but 95% of my shots went to the middle of the fairway ……… I started wondering why other companies don’t make 2 woods………… and OOHHH !! it hit my brain cells !!………. drivers represent more profits, even if most weekend players can’t even hit them straight or long enough to pass the 200 yard mark………. SOOO !!! my point is “SPEND MORE dollars on golf LESSONS” before you spend those thousands in new equipment……….. look how multi-million dollar TIGER doesn’t use the expensive equipment he gets paid to represent on Tour……….. I think he spends more dollars in golf lessons…………. I heard from someone close to him that the rest of his clubs, specially irons and 3 wood are a few years old ………. anyone knows anything about this ?????

      Reply

      Steve P

      11 years ago

      If Tiger spent 5 cents on lessons that would be more than he “spends” on equipment.

      Reply

      Socorro

      11 years ago

      Golf isn’t basketball, but Nike did rather well with Michael Jordan as the principal mover of their Air products.

      Reply

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      True, but…golf isn’t basketball.

      Reply

      TigerPoke

      11 years ago

      I agree with most of the article, but am I in the minority in saying that Tiger’s choice of club makes up 0.00% of which club I decide to purchase?

      Reply

      Vic

      11 years ago

      Ditto that.

      Reply

      TwoSolitudes

      11 years ago

      Same here. What any pro plays is completely irrelevant to me when making a choice of clubs. But it does make me more ‘aware’ of the brands and the newer models.

      Reply

      Lindile

      11 years ago

      Tiger is not only Nike but he is Golf …. Ask the players and TV. I think saying Tiger kills Nike is over ambitious.

      Reply

      joel goodman

      11 years ago

      Teenagers and morons wear the crap that their mini heroes wear. Adults buy what is appropriate, fashionable, comfortable and affordable. The NIKE swoosh or label has no panache,. It is low class, inner city basketball fans and the like… Nike and quality in apparel and in golf equipment is a non sequiter. In plain English—Nike makes crap for the masses.Their equipment has always been second rate. It’s all made in China, so who cares what their label says about Mr. Woods. His appeal is long gone due to his off course actions. Still a great player , but a piece of manure as a human being.

      Reply

      Brian

      11 years ago

      There is a difference between 2nd rate equipment and equipment that you dont like. You clearly have only hit Nike clubs from 10 years ago and/or hit their new equipment with a negative attitude. The way business works is that good products survive, and Nike makes great soft good and great hard goods. What makes Nike NOT appropriate, fashionable, comfortable and affordable?

      Reply

      Joe

      11 years ago

      Also made in China – everyone else.

      Reply

      Vic

      11 years ago

      Sure of that? Isn’t Tour Edge still made in Illinois?

      Joe

      11 years ago

      Referring to major manufacturers.

      I was generalizing for effect. For joel to say that Nike is made in China and therefore inferior is ridiculous. TaylorMade and Callaway are made in China.

      Douglas T. Cooper MD

      11 years ago

      ” It is low class, inner city basketball fans and the like… ”

      And this says just about all we need to know about you joel.

      joel goodman

      11 years ago

      are you a mind reader or a doctor? what kind of judgmental doc are you, doc? Inner city thugs don’t play golf, but they are big on basketball, and AIR JORDANS that they shop lift.

      Doug SMITH

      11 years ago

      i was reading the above article until you mentioned Sergio Garcia who is the biggest jerk in golf….or for that matter…sports. What a conceited spoiled brat! Nuff said!

      Reply

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      True, he is, at times. And Woods is…what?

      Best comment I’ve seen on the current controversy was a guy (I wish I could credit him by name) who said something like this: The whole thing just showed us what we already knew — Garcia can be a whiner, and Woods is an a$shole.

      Character will out, alright.

      Reply

      golfguy

      11 years ago

      Fact…Tigers clubs only SAY Nike…they are actually made for him by Miura…as they do for a lot of other players.

      Reply

      Nate Smith

      11 years ago

      Absolutely incorrect. Get your facts straight. They are made by hand in Ft. Worth…

      Reply

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      Turns out there’s quite a little controversy over this. You learn something every day. (Well, _I_ do, anyway, You already knew it.)

      Steve

      11 years ago

      Fun read, but in the final reckoning : IDGaS.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      11 years ago

      Now that’s an honest response.

      Reply

      finalist

      11 years ago

      Tony, Your article reads a lot like this NY Times article from April 2013.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/business/media/nike-once-cutting-edge-seeks-to-regain-its-brand-aura.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

      “Here, Nike has excelled, uploading to YouTube big commercials for big events like the Olympics and the World Cup and maintaining a major presence in other social media like Twitter, where Nike has more than a million followers, and Facebook, where more than 12.6 million people “like” the brand.
      In fact, the ad last month that congratulated Mr. Woods appeared as posts on Facebook and Twitter rather than television or print ads.
      “Nike is evolving, figuring out how to market to consumers in this new age,” Mr. Schwab of Octagon First Call said. “It’s not just about the 30-second commercial.”

      ————————-

      Large companies with lots of marketing dollars and media buying can be abstract. They can send out clever, funny, trendy commercials and ads that don’t shove the call to action down our throats. Smaller companies must shove their advertised call to action down our throats because their media/ad buying budget is smaller and therefore needs to be very direct. Nike’s ad partners have been on the genius level since the late 1980s.

      Getting the next generation of golfer…
      The grass roots cross platform Nike is doing with Eric Kosten and Tiger is awesome. Focusing their ads on the fat 40 year old would make them look like an infomercial… Besides they do that with their latest TV spots with guys hitting the Covert into Tiger’s green. Skateboarders and surfers are the future golfers. Hit ’em young.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      11 years ago

      There’s an art in focusing on the 40 year old fat guy, without saying “Hey…we’re for the 40 year old fat guy”. If you look at the companies that are winning now (TaylorMade, a resurgent Callaway), they’ve found a way to make their success (spread) on tour relevant to the average golfer. The product focused approach resonates. It’s what the consumer wants to hear. They believe in the 40 year old fat guy, even if they don’t come right out and say it.

      As for hitting them young, you’re right, and that’s what Cobra PUMA is doing, and right now they’re doing it better than anyone, Nike included. It’s a war to become #1, and right now, Nike isn’t winning a battle on any front.

      Once upon a time I was a believer that Nike basketball guys will naturally take up Nike clubs when they transition to golf. I don’t believe that’s true any more. adidas, while not #1 is a big player in those other sports too, and while yes, some guys will play Nike because that’s what the wore when they played basketball, adidas guys will do the same, and so will the PUMA guys. While those numbers favor Nike, it’s not even remotely close to being enough to make a meaningful impact on the numbers.

      Reply

      Joe

      11 years ago

      Where to start with this one?

      So let’s look at it this way – coming from someone that works at a large golf retailer.

      5 Steps Nike has Taken This Year to Begin Their Ascent to Being the #1 Brand in Golf
      (in no particular order)

      1. Signed Rory and Others- Rory is a huge, young player that is a proven winner. Granted, his start this year has been slow, but if you think he won’t win again you are more delusional than this article suggests, which is a lot. Other young signings are getting the swoosh out there too. It’s a start. You can’t expect a company to have a TaylorMade like staff immediately.

      2. Social Media – You said it yourself, Nike has more followers than anyone in golf. You don’t get followers by being bland and boring. You get them by being popular, which is the name of this whole game. They are the most popular brand, so create good products and market appropriately and there’s no stopping them.

      3. They have a compelling Product this year – Nike clubs have been irrelevant for a few years. Tiger will continue to win with them, but his aren’t off the rack clubs anyway (even the Covert stuff that did make it into his bag), so who cares? Manufacturers make different clubs for different types of players, Tiger has his thing, you can have yours too, just make sure it has a swoosh like his. Covert has a look, a story, and performance. Their hosel is the most adjustable, the cavity back makes the wood line interesting, and it performs good enough. It isn’t 10 yards longer than the next guy, but it’s close enough to get them in the conversation for a change. Their TW shoe is a home run and the TW14 model looks even better than the first iteration. Nike’s apparel business will always be healthy due to their cross-sport popularity. You say basketball isn’t golf and you’re right, but to say because Nike is popular in basketball means absolutely nothing for golf is again incorrect. If you play basketball and wear Nike basketball shoes you will try Nike first when getting a pair of golf shoes.

      4. Sell Thru – When bringing in Nike products in the past you are looking forward to a couple months down the road when it gets discounted and people will actually consider it strictly due to price. In rolls 2013. From their packed, popular booth at the PGA show to the highly anticipated retail release of covert to NOW, Nike has been a huge success in 2013. TaylorMade woods – discounted. Callaway woods – discounted. Nike woods – not discounted and still selling! We have continued to bring in Nike clubs all year because people want them, a welcome change and a trend that will only continue.

      5. They have TIGER WOODS – If you ask anyone on the planet to name any golfer, if Tiger is not the first person that pops into their head they are lying. Tiger is synonymous with professional golf. Granted the “40 year old fat guy” may never play golf like Tiger, but they don’t approach a round of golf thinking “I can’t wait to get out there, suck, and make a bunch of triples.” They want to wear red on Sundays, roll in birdie putts, and fist pump in their buddies face as they net a .50 cent skin. That’s what golf is all about. No two days are alike, but every time you want to be at your best, and the best is Tiger Woods.

      For the record, I play zero Nike clubs (but actually considered them this year), I don’t wear Nike exclusively, and am not on their payroll. I just can’t let you completely discount their efforts in 2013 when you will see that it is their most successful year as a golf company by far and they have brought themselves closer to TaylorMade, who clearly is losing ground.

      As a footnote – I feel the need to identify the worst analogy in the history of forever:
      “I’ll say it again, Nike Golf is what it is today because of Tiger Woods. He put them on the map.
      Rhode Island is on the map too, and it’s not getting any bigger.”

      Comparing the fluidity of the popularity of a company to the rigidity of a state’s borders is idiotic. Please write an article telling me what Rhode Island has done wrong to stay the same size for the past 200+ years, maybe it’s Tiger’s fault too?

      Reply

      Hula_rock

      11 years ago

      Well put !!!!!

      Reply

      Dan

      11 years ago

      And as a big retailer, how many spiffs do you receive to sell their product?

      Reply

      Joe

      11 years ago

      We don’t do spiffs at all, across the board. We fit the customer into what they need, they decide on the product they want to purchase, and we find optimal specs for them. The second component is key as sometimes what the customer actually wants isn’t what fits them best. See TaylorMade marketing for the past few years. People want white even to a point of sacrificing performance.

      John Barry

      11 years ago

      Joe, go to a exec at Down Town Locker Room, or Sneaker Villa, Sheik Shoes, Shelmar, Dr. Jays or any Tier 1 Nike account, and off the record, they will be happy to admit that Nike shoves them around, tells what to do and not to do, every single day. Golf stores, your warned, this could be coming your way if it already hasn’t.

      You want to the TW 15 Nike Shoes? You need to bring in every single golf shoe we make in a 3-1 buy. Plus all the Polo’s, in-line and hot ones, all the clubs..etc

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      Very much a big part of what I was talking about re Nike’s entry into the golf market however many years ago that was, as if it were just another sport, and also how they were regarded then, and still are by many people, as an interloper whose brand seems to involve giving the finger to everybody too much of the time.

      Parker

      11 years ago

      In terms of Equipment imo Nike losses because at the end of the day they want to sell hats and shirts.
      So i 100% totally agree with Tony’s comments above. Nike is about making $ and apparel is where its at. 70% of golfers may changes a whole bag of clubs once every 4-6 years but in that time I guarentee you they buy 20-40 pieces of some sort of golf clothing. Hence why they release whay ea player will be wearing before a tournament(stupid). When Nike cares about selling clubs they will really try and get into custom fitting like their competitors but they prob know that is a expensive undertaking for little profit gain. Heck I’ve seen more ad’s for tigers new Shoes then I’ve seen for their new Driver.

      Reply

      Chuck

      11 years ago

      If you have to state your not a hater — that is a dead giveaway that you are. Pretty obvious to most readers. Your argument makes no sense and reveals your character.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      11 years ago

      Is this your first day on the internet?

      Reply

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      No kidding.

      BJB

      11 years ago

      LMFAO classic

      AJ

      11 years ago

      That is the best retort of the century.

      AJ

      Boris

      11 years ago

      The only equipment evaluations a lot of us get are via magazines, internet (when able to connect) and TV. Since there are no PGA Stores, indoor ranges, club fitters, or equipment demos in this area, we have to buy equipment via internet mail orders just to try a new set out. Oh,well, we have a Wal-Mart & Big 5….
      The 40 year old fat guys are the major supporters of golf. Without whom, the equipment manufacturers and Golf courses would be gone as would the PGA, LPGA, etc since no one would be watching or paying to watch play. So I suggest the big boys treat us nice or we will be bye-bye as will our kids, from the game of golf..

      Reply

      blstrong (SeeRed)

      11 years ago

      I think you hit the nail on the head with #4. Nike has for the longest time associated itself very strongly with the elite athlete. No other golf equipment company that I can think of is coming from that background. Having grown up in the 70’s and 80’s, I still think of Nike that way. I still do not think of them as a company producing equipment for the golfing masses, ala TMAG, Adams, or Callaway. I know I’m wrong, but that is still my perception of Nike. To a certain degree, I also have this perception of Mizuno (which may be more accurate). Anyway, I think Nike has to somehow change this perception to get more recreational golfers playing their stuff, regardless of the number of tour players they have in the bag.

      BTW, I wish Nike WOULD bring back the Tour D!

      Reply

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      Or, it could just be that character still matters to millions of golfers.

      I played and taught as a pro, and I happen to know Nike has made some of the best clubs, particularly irons and wedges, of any manufacturer over the past 15 years or so. But after that “winning takes care of everything” finger to the world, I will NEVER buy another piece of Nike equipment. There are plenty of other manufacturers who make equipment that is just as good, and that’s where the dollars are going to go. I’m not even close to the only one, either.

      No, it won’t break the company. Yes, they’ll still make huge profits, because the “expanded market” has brought in people with the same attitude: You can humiliate and betray your wife and children, you can be a complete a-hole to people, you can curse on camera for 17 years when you know kids are watching, but winning a couple of tournaments is still all that matters, and if you’re a winner, you get to do and say what you want, and nobody can criticize you.

      Yeah, a huge part of the market thinks that now. Don’t care. Some of us are still interested in playing the actual game of golf, not golf as just another big-money pro sport that can have no expectations of behavior or speech of its athletes. Some of us still believe that in golf, it matters who you are, what your character is, and how you conduct yourself. People who scoff at that notion are only demonstrating their ignorance of the real game.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      11 years ago

      Stephen, there were two areas I consciously chose to avoid discussing. The first is perceptions about Nike’s equipment. It is an issue for them, but I think anyone who has spent any real time with their gear (from apparel through the entire bag, and even the new balls) knows that, as you pointed out, Nike’s stuff is as good or better than anyone’s. That’s real.

      The 2nd is the general perception of Tiger. You’re right. At the very least he’s polarizing. While there are still some in the middle, he’s very much a love/hate topic. You’re not the first to tell me you won’t buy Nike because of the off-the-course stuff, coupled with what I think is the tasteless way Nike has handled it. That kind of stuff is at odds with my perceptions of the people at Nike, and I do struggle with it from time to time.

      But your view is exactly why Nike needs to rely less on Tiger, when a good percentage of your potential customers view the face of your company in a negative light, it becomes extremely difficult to gain any traction.

      Reply

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      From a business standpoint — and to be fair, the article is about business — I agree with every single thing you say here.

      This is particularly on-target: “That kind of stuff is at odds with my perceptions of the people at Nike, and I do struggle with it from time to time.” My impression too. I think sometimes the need for “edgy” marketing (often done from outside, or with consultants) conflicts with what a company ought to be about, or maybe even what it _is_ about.

      I don’t dispute for a moment that they have read the largest part of their market really well. That is good for them, of course, and good for their stockholders — but not so good for the game I love and have spent a lifetime at.

      pablo

      11 years ago

      Well said.

      Reply

      Mark

      11 years ago

      what does cheating on he’s now ex wife an as you say betraying he’s children have to do with golf? that is the biggest load of BS I’ve heard in a long time do you actually know how many people cheat on there partners? I’d go as far as saying 60% but you’ll judge him because it’s big news in papers an TV but your mate is alright cause it’s not published anywhere your an absolute spanner. I buy Nike equipment because on how it performs an it out performs most other brands like Tiger or hate him he’s made golf what it is today a much bigger market an got a lot more interest in golf with people of all ages the way I look at what Tiger does don’t care what he does of the course it’s what he does on the course that inspires me

      Reply

      manbearpig

      11 years ago

      amen

      40 old former fat guy out

      Reply

      MCoz

      11 years ago

      While I am not sure Nike will take this to heart, for the most part I agree with the much of your comments. Being number one in anything requires a massive move of the consuming public. While Nike became large in the shoe business it was more than a few key athletes, although it may seem like just a few built the company. The competition was few and not strong at the time. Big names were bigger than life and Nike became a “life” without compare. But that isn’t the golf business in which they are coming from way behind with big numbers in front of them. The approach they took 25-30 years ago in the shoe and sports clothing business won’t work today. TaylorMade is the golf model for success, and they basically took a little from Acushnet and a little from Callaway and combined to exceed both. Titleist is not the #1 ball because it is the best, they spent their money on bodies and still do. Anyone on any tour in the world can get a ball-shoe-glove contract from them. Callaway started the tee-up money thing with any Tour player getting X-amount every week that they started a tournament playing their driver. Both companies had good products, mamong the best at that time. TaylorMade took all of this to heart and then blew righ past them all and have kept “the hammer” down. While it will be hard to continue the spectacular growth, it will take something more dynamic to bring them down and it won’t happen immediately (see Titleist balls). Nike is fighting the giants and don’t expect to see Callaway going away, they are in recovery mode. The landscape is interesting. It will be fun to see the battle.

      Reply

      Nigel

      11 years ago

      Until Tiger has a bag full of all the latest Nike equipment, or at least what looks like the latest, they are wasting their money developing new stuff for the retail market. Same with the golf ball. People want to play AND wear what Tiger does. That`s how marketing works in golf, as you point out for the R1 driver and Taylormade. I agree with what you write about Nike needing to diversify it`s tour presence. Tiger has been a tremendous ambassador for Nike and put them on the map as far as golf equipment goes. But he needs to play a red driver. Right now. Taylormade have the #1 driver in golf because they pay far more people to play it. And it`s easy to tell on TV what the players are using, questionable graphics and all.

      Reply

      Trefor

      11 years ago

      What a lot of sense I am surprised Nike have not thought of this….how can a Nike tour player not play with the new gear….no vote of confidence there then….no sales either! I don’t know how the brand is performing in America but there is whole world out here and in Europe they don’t come near the top in fashion or golf clothing….saying that Footjoy is a Brand we all love…did Nike build that or just acquire the company!

      Reply

      weirdpeter

      11 years ago

      I think the ax should be turned away from Tiger at this point in his swing

      Reply

      TigerPoke

      11 years ago

      +1

      Reply

      Chris

      11 years ago

      Wow! I love reading articles based solely on opinion. I would of loved to see if they are truly stalling or are their sales up? What are their profits per club and are they controlling supply rather than dumping it into the market only to discount a couple months later (taylor made anyone?)? Also, is there a negative consumer perception of Tiger that’s causing negative brand association. (FYI – I REALLY don’t like Tiger and I dislike Nike clubs, but I love the apparel and shoes. I’ve actually even purchased shirts tiger has worn this year.)

      Finally, your look at the equipment business misses the biggest single business case to consider. Apparel, shoes, and balls. Blu points this out, and to add, the margins in these categories is much higher and selling these items are much better than going after the raw cost of producing a club, not to mention the trends toward customization and custom shaft options.

      I won’t even jump in to the merchandising/retail prowess that their experience in damn near every other athletic category, allows them to further gain traction against the traditional category players.

      Please think a little harder about your premise and issue an apology to Nike and maybe work a little harder on getting some “inside knowledge.”

      Reply

      Robert

      11 years ago

      FYI
      Nike stock has gone from $49 to $65 over the last six months

      Reply

      jim

      11 years ago

      Everything Tony Covey says seems 100% logical and is most probably true. What he didn’t say is, there will be many who wouldn’t touch Nike just because of Tiger.

      Reply

      pablo

      11 years ago

      Exactly.

      Reply

      Dave S

      11 years ago

      That’s dumb, but probably true.

      Reply

      Foz

      11 years ago

      Hold on now, at last look, Tiger is now gaming both the Nike Covert 3 Wood & 5 Wood.

      Reply

      jay hall

      11 years ago

      very naive article.

      Reply

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      How informative. “Naive” in what way?

      Reply

      John Barry

      11 years ago

      I want everyone to hear this nice and clear, NO GOLFER or GOLF STORE should ever want Nike to be the number 1 brand, ever!

      Nike is number 1 in the shoes in fashion and sports, and they wield their weight around to every single retailer that carries their brands. They tell them what they can sell, force product on them, allocate them on the good releases, and let them know if they are “approved” to open new locations and carry their product. In fashion, if your store doesn’t carry Nike, you are a second tier store by default. As a retailer, you are forced to carry their apparel, their hats along with all the shoes you don’t want, to get the shoes ( about 20% of their full line ) you do want.

      Reply

      Blu

      11 years ago

      By your twisted reasoning then, Callaway should get rid of Phil. What are your credentials to decide what Nike should do. How many Pulitzer Prize’s have you won. From dealing with Nile know the MO. Clothes and shoes are the big bucks.. Same goes with Adidas/Taylor.. Its about the shoes dude.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      11 years ago

      You’re absolutely right…apparel drives profits. Soft goods are where the money is both for manufactures and retailers. It’s why TaylorMade got stronger after the adidas acquisition and why Cobra is stronger as PUMA’s equipment brand. It’s why my guess is that Under Armour is eventually going to pick up a struggling equipment brand and turn them into a real player as well.

      Nike is outstanding position if their long-term goal is to be the #1 footwear (currently footjoy) or the #1 apparel brand in golf. But that’s not where they say they want to be. Nike says they want to be the #1 Company in all off golf. For that to happen, they need to sell a hell of a lot more than shirts, shoes, and khakis.

      Reply

      dt120

      11 years ago

      As someone that has been in high-level marketing for almost half of my life, I can tell you this. The diversification you suggested (Tony), and reasonings with examples, was well thought out and is absolutely PART of the reason Taylormade is #1…

      However, there’s another part that’s missing. The overall advertising. Taylormade has taken the GEICO approach and outside of possibly sponsoring PBR bull riding, they’re everywhere – and they’re the smartest marketers in this industry for it. The gear may be gimmicky and work well enough, but they’re selling the dream wrapped in an overpriced piece of metal, fiberglass and plastic. Hell, look at Adams, they even tried the “million more” BS…then again, was that TMAG’s idea? Bottom line, marketing a product everyone is playing works (you pointed that out as well), but you also need to market it – not just a few spots with Tiger laughing with Rory and something about a resin core.

      The sad part is Nike CAN’T, without losing its elite “athletes first” vision/branding, try these product-and-marketing gimmicks; they simply have to rely on wins and people buying into the people, not the product. Now, can they diversify their “athlete portfolio” like Titleist? Hell, ya they can! Wait…but…then it wouldn’t be all elite athletes would it?

      See. The inherent flaw in their model is their self-induced culture of “athletes”. Without change at that level, they’ll never branch out and try courting the HS/Collegiate levels with cheap gear and establishing a grasswork army. Just top-level winners and call it a day. Sad.

      The real question, and one that I’m sure we can both agree on is this. What exactly does Nike think it will do when Tiger leaves? Jordan never did. Tiger doesn’t have a visible brand with Nike anymore, and I doubt they’d tenure him to promote base products. So…what do they do? The answer? Read your article and create a larger roster, and read my comment and start getting involved in marketing the gear, not the player – EVERYWHERE!

      stephenf

      11 years ago

      “See. The inherent flaw in their model is their self-induced culture of “athletes”. Without change at that level, they’ll never branch out and try courting the HS/Collegiate levels with cheap gear and establishing a grasswork army. Just top-level winners and call it a day.”

      Head of nail, meet hammer.

      I don’t really know what Nike can do about it. Part of the problem they had from the beginning when they got into the golf game was the fact that they were known for real-athlete stuff across the board in various sports. You could say the same of Wilson, Spalding, et al. in the old days, I guess, but those _were_ old days, really old ones, and Wilson (for instance) was great in golf for many decades before the last couple of generations of marketing. They were already known. They clearly made clubs that were second to none. And yet, even _they_ started struggling as the golf-specific companies started to move in (it didn’t help that they panicked and got off-track with what they were trying to do, but anyway).

      Nike’s problem from the beginning (as I said earlier) has been that although they had an established brand as an equipper of great athletes, they were new to golf (and are still widely seen as relatively so — that’s just a result of how long the perception of history is in this game), and so they had the dual problem of 1) always seeming like an interloper in the group of “historic golf” or “golf-specific” brands, and also 2) having golf as only one of their many areas, which can make their efforts with golf equipment feel diffused and generalistic to the average buyer, or at least the average buyer doesn’t see any particular reason to think Nike equipment would be any better than anybody else’s (compare that, for instance, with the expectations for a company that specializes in nothing but golf). The truth is, Nike’s good-player stuff (esp. irons) is really, really good, but I have yet to hear average players raving about their Nike stuff.

      Of course, for a long time the venerable Wilson had essentially the opposite problem: They grassrooted their stuff so much (under the principle of not selling primarily to elite athletes, but to the masses) that nobody thought they were making, or were ever going to make, good clubs for top-level players anymore, and in fact for a while they basically _didn’t_ make top-level stuff that could compete with the leading clubs. Once Wilson lost its second-to-none mojo among pros and top amateurs, the brand was tarnished even at the Kmart level for a lot of people; it lost visibility on commercials during tournaments, etc.

      When you think about it, there’s no particular reason why this should be true. What the pro plays is not what the average player is going to play anyway. But there has always been this perception-of-quality thing that required companies to have at least some share of the pro market for its average-player stuff to be taken seriously. It really does seem like there is something weird about marketing in golf where if you’re going to compete for the top spot as a company, for some reason you have to have both — equipment that works for, feels good to, and appeals to the masses, and also top-line stuff that some of the best pros are playing.

      It also seems to me that nearly all of the companies who do perpetually well in the business are specific to golf, at least in the public’s mind — Titleist, Taylor Made, Callaway, Cleveland, Ping, etc. (Mizuno is an exception, but a lot of average players aren’t that aware of all that Mizuno does in other sports, and besides, the quality of their best irons is so over-the-top good that good players don’t care about the rest of that stuff — which tells me that Nike _could_ overcome the “generalist” perception if they could do what Mizuno does.) Wilson is still struggling along, even though they’re making good top-level clubs again, at least. I just don’t think Nike ever completely overcame its twin images as an interloper and too much a generalist — and, as you suggest, I don’t think the way to start overcoming it is to base nearly 100% of its marketing on furthering the “elite athlete” image.

      But these aren’t the only factors. As a traditionalist, I can tell you that a lot of people like me take associations pretty seriously. If I wear a Nike shirt or play Nike irons at a state qualifier, it sort of screams “Tiger fan/apologist/whatever.” That’s fine if you actually _are_ one, I guess, but the problem is that Woods is a truly polarizing figure, by far the most polarizing in the history of the game. I don’t think it’s any exaggeration to say that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of players who did _not_ come to the game as a result of his celebrity are not particuarly keen to associate themselves with his on-course behavior, his propensity to be a prickly a$$hole, his infidelity, the “winning takes care of everything” bullcrap, etc. People who came to the game as just another sport, particularly just another big-money pro sport, or those who got interested in it specifically because of the Woods influence, will be fine with being associated with Nike. But there will _always_ be a significant part of the market that’s going to resist this association. I think you’ll find a persistent tendency amongst the nontraditionalists to show contempt for this attitude, too — “all pro athletes act that way now,” “all that stuff was personal anyway,” “he’s just more competitive [than Nicklaus? Hogan?], so that’s why he can’t control his profanity,” “he shouldn’t have to worry about antiquated fogeyish ideas of decency, because he’s the dominant player in the game,” etc. — which only alienates the traditionalists even more. I just don’t think you can give the finger to that significant a share of the market and expect them not to react negatively.

      Joel Serra

      11 years ago

      HELLO! Its about the soft goods! I don’t have a single Nike club in my bag and if there’s a Nike ball, I swear I found it. I tried the Nike driver and irons, but went back to Taylor Made and Ping. But there are two pair of Nike shoes and at least six Nike shirts in my closet (not to mention shorts, a hat or two and rain jacket). My guess is that Nike netted more from those sales than the hard-good guys and Tiger is the reason I seek out their soft-goods. The Nike brand manager may want to be #1 in hard goods, but Philip Knight has always known that the place to be #1 is on the earnings report.

      Reply

      mike edelman

      11 years ago

      the rory contract was a bad deal for both nike and McElroy…the kid basically threw the
      new nike method putter away and went back to his scotty cameron..and the reason
      is this….the putter is way to light….Nike bet on rory too early in his career and should
      have simply waited until he developed ..now with nike clubs he stinks and everyone
      understands that he should not have made the equipment switch….but 30 milion bucks
      is very persuasive..meanwhile Tiger has four wins and would have won the masters but
      for the flag hit….so I totally disagree with just about every point you make..Tiger is the
      number one golfer on the tour…and that is who everyone wants to immitate…the problem
      with nike is not who they get to endorse its that their equipment doesn’t measure up to taylor
      made odyssey and titliest….

      Reply

      Yuggy

      11 years ago

      The problem you didn’t pick up on in the article is Tiger WON’T play the new driver. I’ve seen him on the range with it. He hits a few then goes back to the Dinasour. I understand what the writer is saying. Tiger used to play Titleist and made the switch years ago to all Nike. Why no talk about Phil making the big switch before the Ryder Cup years ago? It only hurt him a bit. The biggest thing with Rory isn’t the clubs as much as the ball. To me that’s the problem. The Rory contract was good for Tiger. It gave Tiger the opportunity to get back the number one spot, and Rory’s comfortable with his 200 mill. Hey who knows for sure why Tiger chummed up to Rory at the behest of Nike? Once Tiger gets comfortable enough to play the Red Driver he’ll use it. Til then he’ll use the Dinosaur.

      Reply

      SaiDaiOh

      10 years ago

      Well. He did switch to new fairways, and later the driver (though it’s a fixed shaft)

    Leave A Reply

    required
    required
    required (your email address will not be published)

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Golf Shafts
    Apr 14, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
    News
    Apr 14, 2024
    A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
    Drivers
    Apr 13, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
    ENTER to WIN 3 DOZEN

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls
    By signing up you agree to receive communications from MyGolfSpy and select partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy You may opt out of email messages/withdraw consent at any time.