129 replies to this topic

[Crab Daddy]

KYMAR, on 07 November 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

Crab Daddy, on 07 November 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

KYMAR, on 07 November 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

OP you must have been in utter turmoil when formulating your post and organizing your thoughts. To first suggest how educated the membership here is and then to go to great lengths to tell us how stupid are are for not playing Nike clubs is no small task so Kudos there! To your point, i guess i might be among those you have chosen to chastise  Although there is no truth to the idea that I "hate" a company who makes golf stuff. That's a little ridiculous. My concern though is that because I don''t share your enthusiasm, you are left wounded and disgusted with me. Well,  I apologize for that but nothing is really going to change it. I have given props for the creativity they used in the new designs on the woods and hybrids. I said the new irons are pretty awful to look at and just won't be considered, again. I have never hit an iron of theirs that matched the feel of similar irons from other companies. I will say that the orig pro combos were very nice irons. But nothing since has moved me towards spending money on them. And as an opinion of mine, I find the Dymo woods to be some of the ugliest ever made. They never appealed to me at all. Appearance is an important factor to me. If that makes me a hater, so be it. I would suggest that maybe you should try to get past it and play what you want to play and quit worrying so much about other people opinions on it. And if you are determined to push folks past the idea that they are inferior quality, maybe choose a different tact because this "I think they're awesome and you should too!" approach is lacking, to say the least.

Whoa, Kymar!  Another epic rant. But, unless there is some background here that I have missed, I think you're reading between the lines ... like a novel's worth.  The OP's ... uh, OP simply bemoaned irrational contempt for Nike equipment. He didn't say you should like it, only that there is no reason to dismiss their equipment just because it has a swoosh on it.  Many of your comments could be applied to Ping, as well - there were many people , at the time, that thought the Eye 2's and the TiSi driver were hideous.
I'm no Nike fan or apologist, but I agree with the OP that there is not much difference in quality between any of the major OEMs. I own a Nike VR Pro driver because I wanted an inexpensive way to try out an adjustable driver. The sound is horrible, but the ball goes just as far and just as straight as with my beloved Ping driver. Well, not quite as far, but reasonably close - I mean, c'mon, it's a Ping.
I'm not on board with this one, but keep up the good work.

Maybe what has happened is that i get accused of hating Nike based on my rather modest criticism and therefore overlook posts by others that fit this irrational hatred definition. (I have even said in other threads that all oems make equipment from quality materials up to a high standard. Nike included) So maybe what the OP suggests in fact exists. Based on your post, and in rereading the OP, i will relent and in fact agree with the OP that anyone who continues to say things like "Nike Sucks" are just exposing their own bias. But i disagree with the premise that they some how need to be called out and should simply be ignored. It's sort of like Tiger conversations in that whenever I read "Tiger WILL NEVER win another major!!" I disregard it just as quickly as i do statements like "Tiger WILL DEFINITELY win 25 majors!!". Those statements are rooted in an obvious bias. The same type of things are said about most OEM's. Nike and TM seem to get most of that. Nike has this carpetbagger trying to  "buy a game" reputation, TM has this "all Hype" accusations thrown at them. If there are people out there who feel their lives would be better if Nike fails in the golf business and that's who the OP is referencing then I will agree. But people such as myself with legitimate, if arguable,  criticisms of them shouldn't be lumped in with the fools.

Agreed. We all have our biases, but criticism with a legitimate reason is discussion. Criticism devoid of critical thought should be ignored.
Actually, when I first read the OP, I wondered what he expected.  This is a large forum, and, like any group of people, there's all manner of thought. With any bell curve, the far right will impress, and the far left will annoy. You choose which you pay attention to.

[Sean2]

Zunes, on 07 November 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

Sean2, on 07 November 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

All the OEM's make great equipment. In today's competitive environment they have to. I don't why anyone would hate any OEM. Seems rather silly really.

People "hate" out of fear, or ignorance, but mostly to feel better about themselves because they are insecure.  It's a free country with free speach, but I don't have much use for reading uneducated blanket criticism of another poster, a company or a piece of golf equipment.

I can understand that, sad though it may be...but over golf equipment?

[wobgon]

Sean2, on 07 November 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

Zunes, on 07 November 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

Sean2, on 07 November 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

All the OEM's make great equipment. In today's competitive environment they have to. I don't why anyone would hate any OEM. Seems rather silly really.

People "hate" out of fear, or ignorance, but mostly to feel better about themselves because they are insecure.  It's a free country with free speach, but I don't have much use for reading uneducated blanket criticism of another poster, a company or a piece of golf equipment.

I can understand that, sad though it may be...but over golf equipment?

Silly, silly,silly,silly.

[TheU]

[quote name='sustain' timestamp='1352330739' post='5905145']
[quote name='TheU' timestamp='1352330532' post='5905127']
[quote name='ufgatrs82' timestamp='1352329231' post='5905019']
[quote name='sustain' timestamp='1352328453' post='5904947']
[quote name='ZBigStick' timestamp='1352328253' post='5904925']
[quote name='TheU' timestamp='1352327029' post='5904807']
How about the first solid core golf ball? Does killing the wound ball count?
[/quote]

Are you saying Nike was?

The first solid core urethane covered ball was from Precept/Bridgestone I believe.  On The Tour others used the solid core Top-Flite Strata, and before that the Spalding Tour Edition.  Titleist finally saw the benefits and the market for a solid core Tour Ball, and the Pro V1 dominance began.
[/quote]

Just a little warning to you.  You may not be able to talk much sense into him.  The brand-recognition-guys can be quite irrational at times.  Hopefully it's different this time.
[/quote]
Yeah thats a lost cause. Hes on the other thread defending every honest opinion of the new Nike clubs left and right.
[/quote]

You still mad about the gator comments?
[/quote]

Please take your cult-like, obsessive, college fanboy discussion to PM.  We don't want it in this thread too.
[/quote]

Dang man...you mad too?

[Golfjunki71]

I like Nike but don't call someone a hater just because they disagree. Too much of that here, and it's very unoriginal.

[dlygrisse]

kevcarter, on 07 November 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

sustain, on 07 November 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

I don't hate Nike, but I do "hate" when fanboys use the word hater.

I hate when haters use the term fanboy. :-)

I hate when haters, ho clubs, bag a new driver, game a new putter even if it's sick.

[KYMAR]

dlygrisse, on 07 November 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

kevcarter, on 07 November 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

sustain, on 07 November 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

I don't hate Nike, but I do "hate" when fanboys use the word hater.

I hate when haters use the term fanboy. :-)

I hate when haters, ho clubs, bag a new driver, game a new putter even if it's sick.

Or rock some new irons just cuz they are butter.

Edited by KYMAR, 07 November 2012 - 11:03 PM.

[MadGolfer76]

H.A. Kerr, on 07 November 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

MadGolfer76, on 07 November 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

Pre-Tiger Woods contract - no golf on the radar.

Sign TW - Golf apparel line.

Year or so after signing TW - full line of golf clubs.

Going from 0 to 60 without spending any time in the trenches. They bought the experts, they bought a place for their clubs, they bought the names, they bought...

Nothing you can really argue with about your summary there ...

But I am curious how you think a company trying to break into the golf category (especially in the last few decades) should do it? What would be the "credible way" in? What would count as spending time "in the trenches" when your competition is all the major players, circa 1995? (If you're ignoring 10 years of golf shoes ... which I wouldn't bemoan anyone for ignoring)

I don't know if I have an answer. However, just to throw something out there, look at what Adidas and TaylorMade are doing. Adidas being the "parent" company (for lack of a better term) and letting TM run the show as it pertains to golf, while having pros wear Adidas. I suppose Nike could have taken on another company in the same way. God knows, MacGregor could have used the help, along with the Hogan company at the time, before Callaway just...wronged it.

The thing is, I cannot even fathom a situation where Nike sat down and said, "We really should break into golf" before Tiger Woods. I think at the time with Jordan finishing up, they were looking for the next big thing to replace him and be the face for the company, and it didn't really matter what sport it was in. They said, "Hey, look at this Tiger Woods guy." Signed him, clothed him, put clubs in his hands and plowed their way into the retail stores. The clubs were so God-awful they were falling apart (I had one!).

It was just everything, all at once, with really bad quality control. They could have gone the boutique route; started with irons, or a driver, and then eased their way in one solid offering at a time (build customer loyalty), but I doubt that would have allowed them to capitalize as much as they would have liked with TW's image and popularity. It just really smacked of (at the time), "Let's get something/anything out there." The move was really transparent. That was what Phil Mickelson alluded to when he got flamed by the press for calling Nike golf clubs inferior a number of years ago.

They WERE inferior. No one who ever played the first couple Nike sticks would ever say otherwise. Hence, the rumor of TW playing Miura/Mizuno with Nike stampings. That isn't the case now, although they still turn out clunkers here and there, like almost everyone else. They are putting out some great stuff; no one could make a case for them being in the same situation as when they started, but marketing strategy is still anybody's place to comment.

I don't really think they care about golf; their identity didn't start with it, and certainly won't end with it. I don't think Nike would have a problem kicking the golf section to the curb if McIlroy doesn't pan out. They got into the golf industry because of the star that they bought. There is no culture there, like with Karsten Solheim, Ely Callaway, or even Ben Hogan. The best companies start from humble beginnings, in my opinion.

BlkNGld, on 07 November 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

MadGolfer76, on 07 November 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

Going from 0 to 60 without spending any time in the trenches. They bought the experts, they bought a place for their clubs, they bought the names, they bought...

...see a trend? This happened within a few short years. Hence my apt description of "buying" their way in.

Couldn't the same be said of Adidas and Puma?

The only real difference is that Adidas and Puma bought the companies and the people, Nike brought in people who've paid dues, but as a company pretty much started from scratch.

I didn't care for the first few models, but they've shown they're in it for the long haul.

Nnnn...the difference with Adidas and Puma (in my mind anyway) is that they haven't stamped their name specifically on golf clubs. I know who they have under their "umbrella," but Nike isn't doing the same thing. They didn't buy an existing company and work THAT company to the top of the business and then either absorb, or release that company and start their own production based on kept intellectual property from the previous affiliation. They elected to put the "Nike" brand logo on the clubs, and appeared to want that kind of visibility from day one.

Edited by MadGolfer76, 07 November 2012 - 11:25 PM.

[saltrunner]

I bought a brand new Nike Black Square Driver and man that thing sucked... I know it got great reviews but it just felt cheap and crappy in comparison to the other drivers I have owned ie. Titleist, Taylormade,Mizuno... I just hated it and then I tried to sell it on ebay and its the only club I could sell. I have sold complete sets .. hybrids, putters.. but this thing would not sell. I was seeing brand new ones for sale at a 1/3 of the price I paid . Not hating at all ,,, just not happy with most of the golf products........ I am again excited about the new driver .. looking forward to trying it out but doubt I will replace my R11s anytime soon.

[SurfinTurf]

IMO there's two good things about NIke now;  Rory and John Cookie Baby.

I'd throw in Carl Pettersson just for raw sex appeal.

Edited by SurfinTurf, 08 November 2012 - 12:06 AM.

[Rustynuts]

I just prefer Reebok! Now where are their damn clubs!

[bmellisen]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1352348336' post='5906361']
[quote name='H.A. Kerr' timestamp='1352332686' post='5905293']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1352331400' post='5905193']
Pre-Tiger Woods contract - no golf on the radar.

Sign TW - Golf apparel line.

Year or so after signing TW - full line of golf clubs.

Going from 0 to 60 without spending any time in the trenches. They bought the experts, they bought a place for their clubs, they bought the names, they bought...
[/quote]

Nothing you can really argue with about your summary there ...

But I am curious how you think a company trying to break into the golf category (especially in the last few decades) should do it? What would be the "credible way" in? What would count as spending time "in the trenches" when your competition is all the major players, circa 1995? (If you're ignoring 10 years of golf shoes ... which I wouldn't bemoan anyone for ignoring)
[/quote]

I don't know if I have an answer. However, just to throw something out there, look at what Adidas and TaylorMade are doing. Adidas being the "parent" company (for lack of a better term) and letting TM run the show as it pertains to golf, while having pros wear Adidas. I suppose Nike could have taken on another company in the same way. God knows, MacGregor could have used the help, along with the Hogan company at the time, before Callaway just...wronged it.

The thing is, I cannot even fathom a situation where Nike sat down and said, "We really should break into golf" before Tiger Woods. I think at the time with Jordan finishing up, they were looking for the next big thing to replace him and be the face for the company, and it didn't really matter what sport it was in. They said, "Hey, look at this Tiger Woods guy." Signed him, clothed him, put clubs in his hands and plowed their way into the retail stores. The clubs were so God-awful they were falling apart (I had one!).

It was just everything, all at once, with really bad quality control. They could have gone the boutique route; started with irons, or a driver, and then eased their way in one solid offering at a time (build customer loyalty), but I doubt that would have allowed them to capitalize as much as they would have liked with TW's image and popularity. It just really smacked of (at the time), "Let's get something/anything out there." The move was really transparent. That was what Phil Mickelson alluded to when he got flamed by the press for calling Nike golf clubs inferior a number of years ago.

They WERE inferior. No one who ever played the first couple Nike sticks would ever say otherwise. Hence, the rumor of TW playing Miura/Mizuno with Nike stampings. That isn't the case now, although they still turn out clunkers here and there, like almost everyone else. They are putting out some great stuff; no one could make a case for them being in the same situation as when they started, but marketing strategy is still anybody's place to comment.

I don't really think they care about golf; their identity didn't start with it, and certainly won't end with it. I don't think Nike would have a problem kicking the golf section to the curb if McIlroy doesn't pan out. They got into the golf industry because of the star that they bought. There is no culture there, like with Karsten Solheim, Ely Callaway, or even Ben Hogan. The best companies start from humble beginnings, in my opinion.

[quote name='BlkNGld' timestamp='1352337968' post='5905713']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1352331400' post='5905193']
Going from 0 to 60 without spending any time in the trenches. They bought the experts, they bought a place for their clubs, they bought the names, they bought...

...see a trend? This happened within a few short years. Hence my apt description of "buying" their way in.
[/quote]

Couldn't the same be said of Adidas and Puma?

The only real difference is that Adidas and Puma bought the companies and the people, Nike brought in people who've paid dues, but as a company pretty much started from scratch.

I didn't care for the first few models, but they've shown they're in it for the long haul.
[/quote]

Nnnn...the difference with Adidas and Puma (in my mind anyway) is that they haven't stamped their name specifically on golf clubs. I know who they have under their "umbrella," but Nike isn't doing the same thing. They didn't buy an existing company and work THAT company to the top of the business and then either absorb, or release that company and start their own production based on kept intellectual property from the previous affiliation. They elected to put the "Nike" brand logo on the clubs, and appeared to want that kind of visibility from day one.
[/quote]

Madgolder- From the standpoint of someone who is passionate about golf, what you are saying makes sense. But from a marketers standpoint, what nike did makes perfect sense. Why would you start as a boutique golf company, when you could brand your products with one of the most recognized brands not just in sports, but in all business. Stamping adidas or puma on a product will not make the general public buy something, but stamp nike on it and they will. There is equity in the nike brand, it would make no sense to not use it.

And its easy to see nike having conversations about golf prior to TW. But those coversations would end in no, because there wasnt a marketable athletic star in the sport to tie your brand to until TW came along. Once again, from a golfers view you might not like it, but from a marketers view why wouldnt you go that route?

[tElihu]

Matty T, on 07 November 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

This thread is useless

Hater

[Willie Malay]

NIKE SUCKS!

[shakey]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1352348336' post='5906361']
[quote name='H.A. Kerr' timestamp='1352332686' post='5905293']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1352331400' post='5905193']
Pre-Tiger Woods contract - no golf on the radar.

Sign TW - Golf apparel line.

Year or so after signing TW - full line of golf clubs.

Going from 0 to 60 without spending any time in the trenches. They bought the experts, they bought a place for their clubs, they bought the names, they bought...
[/quote]

Nothing you can really argue with about your summary there ...

But I am curious how you think a company trying to break into the golf category (especially in the last few decades) should do it? What would be the "credible way" in? What would count as spending time "in the trenches" when your competition is all the major players, circa 1995? (If you're ignoring 10 years of golf shoes ... which I wouldn't bemoan anyone for ignoring)
[/quote]

I don't know if I have an answer. However, just to throw something out there, look at what Adidas and TaylorMade are doing. Adidas being the "parent" company (for lack of a better term) and letting TM run the show as it pertains to golf, while having pros wear Adidas. I suppose Nike could have taken on another company in the same way. God knows, MacGregor could have used the help, along with the Hogan company at the time, before Callaway just...wronged it.

The thing is, I cannot even fathom a situation where Nike sat down and said, "We really should break into golf" before Tiger Woods. I think at the time with Jordan finishing up, they were looking for the next big thing to replace him and be the face for the company, and it didn't really matter what sport it was in. They said, "Hey, look at this Tiger Woods guy." Signed him, clothed him, put clubs in his hands and plowed their way into the retail stores. The clubs were so God-awful they were falling apart (I had one!).

It was just everything, all at once, with really bad quality control. They could have gone the boutique route; started with irons, or a driver, and then eased their way in one solid offering at a time (build customer loyalty), but I doubt that would have allowed them to capitalize as much as they would have liked with TW's image and popularity. It just really smacked of (at the time), "Let's get something/anything out there." The move was really transparent. That was what Phil Mickelson alluded to when he got flamed by the press for calling Nike golf clubs inferior a number of years ago.

They WERE inferior. No one who ever played the first couple Nike sticks would ever say otherwise. Hence, the rumor of TW playing Miura/Mizuno with Nike stampings. That isn't the case now, although they still turn out clunkers here and there, like almost everyone else. They are putting out some great stuff; no one could make a case for them being in the same situation as when they started, but marketing strategy is still anybody's place to comment.

I don't really think they care about golf; their identity didn't start with it, and certainly won't end with it. I don't think Nike would have a problem kicking the golf section to the curb if McIlroy doesn't pan out. They got into the golf industry because of the star that they bought. There is no culture there, like with Karsten Solheim, Ely Callaway, or even Ben Hogan. The best companies start from humble beginnings, in my opinion.

[quote name='BlkNGld' timestamp='1352337968' post='5905713']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1352331400' post='5905193']
Going from 0 to 60 without spending any time in the trenches. They bought the experts, they bought a place for their clubs, they bought the names, they bought...

...see a trend? This happened within a few short years. Hence my apt description of "buying" their way in.
[/quote]

Couldn't the same be said of Adidas and Puma?

The only real difference is that Adidas and Puma bought the companies and the people, Nike brought in people who've paid dues, but as a company pretty much started from scratch.

I didn't care for the first few models, but they've shown they're in it for the long haul.
[/quote]

Nnnn...the difference with Adidas and Puma (in my mind anyway) is that they haven't stamped their name specifically on golf clubs. I know who they have under their "umbrella," but Nike isn't doing the same thing. They didn't buy an existing company and work THAT company to the top of the business and then either absorb, or release that company and start their own production based on kept intellectual property from the previous affiliation. They elected to put the "Nike" brand logo on the clubs, and appeared to want that kind of visibility from day one.
[/quote]I agree that the first line of woods was pretty awful, but it's hard to knock the quality of the first set of blades and the first generation of pro combos.

[nbg352]

sustain, on 07 November 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

I don't hate Nike, but I do "hate" when fanboys use the word hater.

A lot of folks don't care too much for fanboy, either.
I'm a fan of neither term. They are equally degrading.
I've never been a fan of Nike products, until this past year. I think 2012 was a turnaround year for them. All that R&D, finally paying off. The new line up looks pretty radical, but we'll see. Nike has never been afraid to show us an alternative to the traditional.
I wonder what a cavity back driver feels like at impact? Can't wait to find out!

[Sean25rp]

mukster, on 07 November 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

kevcarter, on 07 November 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

sustain, on 07 November 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

I don't hate Nike, but I do "hate" when fanboys use the word hater.

I hate when haters use the term fanboy. :-)

Darn kev, you stole my post

You're avatar is freaky. Surely you all meant to spell it fanboi?

[MadGolfer76]

[quote name='bmellisen' timestamp='1352380957' post='5907077']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1352348336' post='5906361']
[quote name='H.A. Kerr' timestamp='1352332686' post='5905293']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1352331400' post='5905193']
Pre-Tiger Woods contract - no golf on the radar.

Sign TW - Golf apparel line.

Year or so after signing TW - full line of golf clubs.

Going from 0 to 60 without spending any time in the trenches. They bought the experts, they bought a place for their clubs, they bought the names, they bought...
[/quote]

Nothing you can really argue with about your summary there ...

But I am curious how you think a company trying to break into the golf category (especially in the last few decades) should do it? What would be the "credible way" in? What would count as spending time "in the trenches" when your competition is all the major players, circa 1995? (If you're ignoring 10 years of golf shoes ... which I wouldn't bemoan anyone for ignoring)
[/quote]

I don't know if I have an answer. However, just to throw something out there, look at what Adidas and TaylorMade are doing. Adidas being the "parent" company (for lack of a better term) and letting TM run the show as it pertains to golf, while having pros wear Adidas. I suppose Nike could have taken on another company in the same way. God knows, MacGregor could have used the help, along with the Hogan company at the time, before Callaway just...wronged it.

The thing is, I cannot even fathom a situation where Nike sat down and said, "We really should break into golf" before Tiger Woods. I think at the time with Jordan finishing up, they were looking for the next big thing to replace him and be the face for the company, and it didn't really matter what sport it was in. They said, "Hey, look at this Tiger Woods guy." Signed him, clothed him, put clubs in his hands and plowed their way into the retail stores. The clubs were so God-awful they were falling apart (I had one!).

It was just everything, all at once, with really bad quality control. They could have gone the boutique route; started with irons, or a driver, and then eased their way in one solid offering at a time (build customer loyalty), but I doubt that would have allowed them to capitalize as much as they would have liked with TW's image and popularity. It just really smacked of (at the time), "Let's get something/anything out there." The move was really transparent. That was what Phil Mickelson alluded to when he got flamed by the press for calling Nike golf clubs inferior a number of years ago.

They WERE inferior. No one who ever played the first couple Nike sticks would ever say otherwise. Hence, the rumor of TW playing Miura/Mizuno with Nike stampings. That isn't the case now, although they still turn out clunkers here and there, like almost everyone else. They are putting out some great stuff; no one could make a case for them being in the same situation as when they started, but marketing strategy is still anybody's place to comment.

I don't really think they care about golf; their identity didn't start with it, and certainly won't end with it. I don't think Nike would have a problem kicking the golf section to the curb if McIlroy doesn't pan out. They got into the golf industry because of the star that they bought. There is no culture there, like with Karsten Solheim, Ely Callaway, or even Ben Hogan. The best companies start from humble beginnings, in my opinion.

[quote name='BlkNGld' timestamp='1352337968' post='5905713']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1352331400' post='5905193']
Going from 0 to 60 without spending any time in the trenches. They bought the experts, they bought a place for their clubs, they bought the names, they bought...

...see a trend? This happened within a few short years. Hence my apt description of "buying" their way in.
[/quote]

Couldn't the same be said of Adidas and Puma?

The only real difference is that Adidas and Puma bought the companies and the people, Nike brought in people who've paid dues, but as a company pretty much started from scratch.

I didn't care for the first few models, but they've shown they're in it for the long haul.
[/quote]

Nnnn...the difference with Adidas and Puma (in my mind anyway) is that they haven't stamped their name specifically on golf clubs. I know who they have under their "umbrella," but Nike isn't doing the same thing. They didn't buy an existing company and work THAT company to the top of the business and then either absorb, or release that company and start their own production based on kept intellectual property from the previous affiliation. They elected to put the "Nike" brand logo on the clubs, and appeared to want that kind of visibility from day one.
[/quote]

Madgolder- From the standpoint of someone who is passionate about golf, what you are saying makes sense. But from a marketers standpoint, what nike did makes perfect sense. Why would you start as a boutique golf company, when you could brand your products with one of the most recognized brands not just in sports, but in all business. Stamping adidas or puma on a product will not make the general public buy something, but stamp nike on it and they will. There is equity in the nike brand, it would make no sense to not use it.

And its easy to see nike having conversations about golf prior to TW. But those coversations would end in no, because there wasnt a marketable athletic star in the sport to tie your brand to until TW came along. Once again, from a golfers view you might not like it, but from a marketers view why wouldnt you go that route?
[/quote]

I am not speaking from a could have/should have perspective. They "could" and they "did." Nike saw an opportunity and took advantage. The point I wished to convey, is that the "hate" people perceive re: Nike comes from how they barged their way into the golf industry. It came off as being rather transparent and fairly disingenuous.

From an observational standpoint, how they entered into the golf world had nothing to do with a love of the game like other companies' founders. If there had been a bigger potential star than Tiger Woods in some other sport, they never would have gotten involved. They followed the money, and no one should expect otherwise. The only "price" of doing so, however, is that they open themselves to scrutiny in terms of their motivation, which is what we read here.

Like I said, though, they don't lose sleep over what the naysayers contribute.

[MadGolfer76]

[quote name='shakey' timestamp='1352410164' post='5909233']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1352348336' post='5906361']
[quote name='H.A. Kerr' timestamp='1352332686' post='5905293']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1352331400' post='5905193']
Pre-Tiger Woods contract - no golf on the radar.

Sign TW - Golf apparel line.

Year or so after signing TW - full line of golf clubs.

Going from 0 to 60 without spending any time in the trenches. They bought the experts, they bought a place for their clubs, they bought the names, they bought...
[/quote]

Nothing you can really argue with about your summary there ...

But I am curious how you think a company trying to break into the golf category (especially in the last few decades) should do it? What would be the "credible way" in? What would count as spending time "in the trenches" when your competition is all the major players, circa 1995? (If you're ignoring 10 years of golf shoes ... which I wouldn't bemoan anyone for ignoring)
[/quote]

I don't know if I have an answer. However, just to throw something out there, look at what Adidas and TaylorMade are doing. Adidas being the "parent" company (for lack of a better term) and letting TM run the show as it pertains to golf, while having pros wear Adidas. I suppose Nike could have taken on another company in the same way. God knows, MacGregor could have used the help, along with the Hogan company at the time, before Callaway just...wronged it.

The thing is, I cannot even fathom a situation where Nike sat down and said, "We really should break into golf" before Tiger Woods. I think at the time with Jordan finishing up, they were looking for the next big thing to replace him and be the face for the company, and it didn't really matter what sport it was in. They said, "Hey, look at this Tiger Woods guy." Signed him, clothed him, put clubs in his hands and plowed their way into the retail stores. The clubs were so God-awful they were falling apart (I had one!).

It was just everything, all at once, with really bad quality control. They could have gone the boutique route; started with irons, or a driver, and then eased their way in one solid offering at a time (build customer loyalty), but I doubt that would have allowed them to capitalize as much as they would have liked with TW's image and popularity. It just really smacked of (at the time), "Let's get something/anything out there." The move was really transparent. That was what Phil Mickelson alluded to when he got flamed by the press for calling Nike golf clubs inferior a number of years ago.

They WERE inferior. No one who ever played the first couple Nike sticks would ever say otherwise. Hence, the rumor of TW playing Miura/Mizuno with Nike stampings. That isn't the case now, although they still turn out clunkers here and there, like almost everyone else. They are putting out some great stuff; no one could make a case for them being in the same situation as when they started, but marketing strategy is still anybody's place to comment.

I don't really think they care about golf; their identity didn't start with it, and certainly won't end with it. I don't think Nike would have a problem kicking the golf section to the curb if McIlroy doesn't pan out. They got into the golf industry because of the star that they bought. There is no culture there, like with Karsten Solheim, Ely Callaway, or even Ben Hogan. The best companies start from humble beginnings, in my opinion.

[quote name='BlkNGld' timestamp='1352337968' post='5905713']
[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1352331400' post='5905193']
Going from 0 to 60 without spending any time in the trenches. They bought the experts, they bought a place for their clubs, they bought the names, they bought...

...see a trend? This happened within a few short years. Hence my apt description of "buying" their way in.
[/quote]

Couldn't the same be said of Adidas and Puma?

The only real difference is that Adidas and Puma bought the companies and the people, Nike brought in people who've paid dues, but as a company pretty much started from scratch.

I didn't care for the first few models, but they've shown they're in it for the long haul.
[/quote]

Nnnn...the difference with Adidas and Puma (in my mind anyway) is that they haven't stamped their name specifically on golf clubs. I know who they have under their "umbrella," but Nike isn't doing the same thing. They didn't buy an existing company and work THAT company to the top of the business and then either absorb, or release that company and start their own production based on kept intellectual property from the previous affiliation. They elected to put the "Nike" brand logo on the clubs, and appeared to want that kind of visibility from day one.
[/quote]I agree that the first line of woods was pretty awful, but it's hard to knock the quality of the first set of blades and the first generation of pro combos.
[/quote]

Agree.

[mukster]

I keep forgetting that we have discerning golfing folks here, guys that can feel the difference between Endo forged and grain flow forged, while wearing a blindfold. "It's a different butter".
I have yet to own a Nike club that is shoddily put together, like the Adams fairway with plugs and pieces falling off it (and I love Adams gear). When guys use the term "inferior", I am not always sure what to make of that. My VR splits are solidly put together and I hit them better than a ton of other OEM stuff I tried. I tried my buddy's Nike hybrids and they are pretty darn solid. I hit another friend's VR_S driver and it is a great club. So they don't seem to be inferior from a construction point of view. Maybe they mean that they don't perform as well. I don't believe there is any practical way to support such a claim, which means it is a personal judgement from the guy swinging them. I would love to see results if they could do double blinded placebo controlled studies on clubs!

[MadGolfer76]

mukster, on 08 November 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

I keep forgetting that we have discerning golfing folks here, guys that can feel the difference between Endo forged and grain flow forged, while wearing a blindfold. "It's a different butter".
I have yet to own a Nike club that is shoddily put together, like the Adams fairway with plugs and pieces falling off it (and I love Adams gear). When guys use the term "inferior", I am not always sure what to make of that. My VR splits are solidly put together and I hit them better than a ton of other OEM stuff I tried. I tried my buddy's Nike hybrids and they are pretty darn solid. I hit another friend's VR_S driver and it is a great club. So they don't seem to be inferior from a construction point of view. Maybe they mean that they don't perform as well. I don't believe there is any practical way to support such a claim, which means it is a personal judgement from the guy swinging them. I would love to see results if they could do double blinded placebo controlled studies on clubs!

The short answer is - Yeah, they are good now, but their first couple of runs around the turn of the century were embarrassing at times.

I am giving the short answer, because I don't think I can stand to look at your avatar for too long. Dude, that thing is just wrong.

[Sparty]

need2compress, on 07 November 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

This site offers probably the most educated golf community on the web but the negativity about Nike golf equipment is not justified. Unfortunately, the signing of RM has once again ignited the bashing.
I understand they made a mistake with their first driver offering but to say their equipment is inferior to Titleist or other companies is ignorant. No one can match Nike's R and D budget. Moreover, the employees they have in the R and D department are some of the industries best and brightest. Many of them were actually plucked from other OEMS. People have to understand they started from zero just a decade ago.  Imagine where they will be in another 5 or ten years.  Good choice Rors!

Actually I hate Nike because I always have and will. Has nothing to do with Nike Golf or their equipment. I just dont care for the brand. Happy for Rory though should be a great relationship.

[scottcheek]

There is no value in this thread.  Nike makes products that match the performance of all OEM's.  Golf equipment is a preference in feel, sound and looks.  Obviously the best players in the world can win majors with thier equipment.  

That said, I would never buy thier products because I won't give a dime to the morally bankrupt.  Sweat shops, poor customer service, endorsing criminals and those who have no understanding of human decency.   People hate the Brand, not the clubs.

[mukster]

MadGolfer76, on 08 November 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

mukster, on 08 November 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

I keep forgetting that we have discerning golfing folks here, guys that can feel the difference between Endo forged and grain flow forged, while wearing a blindfold. "It's a different butter".
I have yet to own a Nike club that is shoddily put together, like the Adams fairway with plugs and pieces falling off it (and I love Adams gear). When guys use the term "inferior", I am not always sure what to make of that. My VR splits are solidly put together and I hit them better than a ton of other OEM stuff I tried. I tried my buddy's Nike hybrids and they are pretty darn solid. I hit another friend's VR_S driver and it is a great club. So they don't seem to be inferior from a construction point of view. Maybe they mean that they don't perform as well. I don't believe there is any practical way to support such a claim, which means it is a personal judgement from the guy swinging them. I would love to see results if they could do double blinded placebo controlled studies on clubs!

The short answer is - Yeah, they are good now, but their first couple of runs around the turn of the century were embarrassing at times.

I am giving the short answer, because I don't think I can stand to look at your avatar for too long. Dude, that thing is just wrong.

Hope this avatar is better:)

[acubillas]

OK.

Nike, like every other OEM, makes some good and some not-so-good products.  Just like every other manufacturer on occasion they make a stellar product:

SQ2 Fairways, Original Blades, Dymo 380cc are all pretty beastly.  Also, if the cut of the shirts work for your frame, there is very little out there that matches it's comfort, moisture wicking and feel.  Frankly, I feel like I'm wearing jammies all the time.

When my kids were learning to play, the Slingshot OSSs helped them gain the confidence to keep playing.  Same with the Sumo Hybrids.

I'm a true club ho and have played just about everything that's out there.  Every year.  Yeah, it's a sickness.  I still sport some NIke gear in my bag.

My 2c.

[MadGolfer76]

mukster, on 08 November 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

MadGolfer76, on 08 November 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

mukster, on 08 November 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

I keep forgetting that we have discerning golfing folks here, guys that can feel the difference between Endo forged and grain flow forged, while wearing a blindfold. "It's a different butter".
I have yet to own a Nike club that is shoddily put together, like the Adams fairway with plugs and pieces falling off it (and I love Adams gear). When guys use the term "inferior", I am not always sure what to make of that. My VR splits are solidly put together and I hit them better than a ton of other OEM stuff I tried. I tried my buddy's Nike hybrids and they are pretty darn solid. I hit another friend's VR_S driver and it is a great club. So they don't seem to be inferior from a construction point of view. Maybe they mean that they don't perform as well. I don't believe there is any practical way to support such a claim, which means it is a personal judgement from the guy swinging them. I would love to see results if they could do double blinded placebo controlled studies on clubs!

The short answer is - Yeah, they are good now, but their first couple of runs around the turn of the century were embarrassing at times.

I am giving the short answer, because I don't think I can stand to look at your avatar for too long. Dude, that thing is just wrong.

Hope this avatar is better:)

Ha!

Ehhh...slightly.

[Llortamaisey]

Crab Daddy, on 07 November 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

Llortamaisey, on 07 November 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

How can anyone hate Nike. They have the best running shoes and basketball shoes on the market. Are there better deals out there? Certainly. But no one can deny the style and performance when they hit the hardwood with a pair of Nikes on their feet.

Phil? How's the weather in Oregon?

Terrible! I'd kick a baby in the lips for some dry sunshine. That's why our football team wears a different uniform every week. The gray rain gets the threads dirty.

[mikeyun1992]

scottcheek, on 08 November 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

There is no value in this thread.  Nike makes products that match the performance of all OEM's.  Golf equipment is a preference in feel, sound and looks.  Obviously the best players in the world can win majors with thier equipment.  

That said, I would never buy thier products because I won't give a dime to the morally bankrupt.  Sweat shops, poor customer service, endorsing criminals and those who have no understanding of human decency.   People hate the Brand, not the clubs.

Hmm, can you name couple of drivers that are made (not assembled) in the USA?!?

[iH83Putting]

RRFireblade, on 07 November 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

Hate usually stems from within.

If you look for hate , hate is all you will see.

Thanks Yoda

[Matty T]

tElihu, on 08 November 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Matty T, on 07 November 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

This thread is useless

Hater

Ya sure