• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
golf55

nike golf clubs

17 posts in this topic

I tried nike golf clubs years ago and hated it. Recently tried them again and they made huge improvements but it's still not the best. Taylormade, titleist, ping, even callaway all felt more superior but nike has come a long way.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Dunno man... I picked up the VR CB Combos during the holidays.  Forged split cavity 6-PW iron, forged pocket cavity 3-5 iron.  Great clubs, great look, great feel.  Can't speak for the other models though.

I guess they don't feel great on mis-hits but that's the point of a forged club, right?  It's awesome when I hit them flush though.

What models of Nike did you try?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by daSeth

Dunno man... I picked up the VR CB Combos during the holidays.  Forged split cavity 6-PW iron, forged pocket cavity 3-5 iron.  Great clubs, great look, great feel.  Can't speak for the other models though.

I guess they don't feel great on mis-hits but that's the point of a forged club, right?  It's awesome when I hit them flush though.

What models of Nike did you try?


The new nike clubs are great clubs! my point is that titleist and other big brands are still slightly better and at same retail price I don't see the reason to switch to nike. I tried the nike wedges, drivers and woods. They were clean and had a nice feel to it but I would rather wait couple more years before I make the switch.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, yeah, funny you say that... I don't know if I would have bought them had I actually paid retail.  At straight up retail, I'd have gotten some Mizunos.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never had a problem with my Nikes as far as performance, quality, and feel go. I had a set of Mizuno irons and replaced them with the VR Pro Combos that I have in the bag now. I'm testing out some TaylorMades too, which I like, but the Nikes are still likely to win out. Have any evidence for this, or is it just a get feeling?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Originally Posted by jamo

Have any evidence for this, or is it just a get feeling?


No evidence. Just my opinion from hitting golf clubs. The new nike clubs feels closer to titleist, not a bad company to copy from ;). They improved a lot as a golf company since the SQ square driver. The new nike clubs are my top 4 golf club companies now. I would buy them if they were cheaper for sure.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got an old Nike 5 wood and I love it. Its my go to club when I'm in trouble on par 5s, or have to get the ball in the fairway on short holes

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely wrong.  Nikes are vastly better than TMs, Titleists, Callaways, etc...

And you'd have to be a dolt with no tastebuds in his mouth to think that pizza is better than a good hamburger

Just like how blondes are much better than brunettes, but neither can hold a candle to redheads....

Now a good IPA, that is unquestionably better than a light beer, though.

A year and a half ago, I spent a very slow Friday night (wife and daughter were visting my mother-in-law, and I had just finished the best hamburger I've ever had at a local brewpub, washed down with an IPA and an APA, too) at the Dick's Sporting Goods at the mall.  I took my old 7-iron out of my trunk, went to the golf department, then I grabbed a couple of different 7-irons from Adams, TaylorMade, Callaway, and Nike and headed into their simulator room and began testing them out.  I discovered that I was not only hitting the Nike Slingshots in a tighter group in the center of the screen, but they were averaging about 3-7 yards further than any other club I tried, including my old Hogan.  So if I tried to apply your subjective judgment to my situation, I would have to conclude that Nike unquestionably DOES make the best club.

After all, the world # 1 and #2 players play Nike clubs, so they have to be "best" - right?

Well, I did end up buying the Nikes and I've had no regrets.  Are they the most superior clubs I could buy?  For a better golfer - no, they're game improvement clubs that aren't made to be worked with precision, like one could with a forged club.  For a higher handicapped player like me?  I have no idea - I only demoed a half dozen clubs.  But I did like how they looked, how they felt, and how they hit.

I wouldn't think for a minute that my personal, very subjective experiences hitting different brands of golf clubs enables me (or anyone else doing the same thing) to conclude that one brand name club is a "better" club than another.  Why would you?  One brand may be better for a particular person than another but unless one brand's got some actual QC problems, there are no "best" or "worst" brands.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely wrong.  Nikes are vastly better than TMs, Titleists, Callaways, etc... And you'd have to be a dolt with no tastebuds in his mouth to think that pizza is better than a good hamburger Just like how blondes are much better than brunettes, but neither can hold a candle to redheads.... Now a good IPA, that is unquestionably better than a light beer, though. A year and a half ago, I spent a very slow Friday night (wife and daughter were visting my mother-in-law, and I had just finished the best hamburger I've ever had at a local brewpub, washed down with an IPA and an APA, too) at the Dick's Sporting Goods at the mall.  I took my old 7-iron out of my trunk, went to the golf department, then I grabbed a couple of different 7-irons from Adams, TaylorMade, Callaway, and Nike and headed into their simulator room and began testing them out.  I discovered that I was not only hitting the Nike Slingshots in a tighter group in the center of the screen, but they were averaging about 3-7 yards further than any other club I tried, including my old Hogan.  So if I tried to apply your subjective judgment to my situation, I would have to conclude that Nike unquestionably DOES make the best club. After all, the world # 1 and #2 players play Nike clubs, so they have to be "best" - right? Well, I did end up buying the Nikes and I've had no regrets.  Are they the most superior clubs I could buy?  For a better golfer - no, they're game improvement clubs that aren't made to be worked with precision, like one could with a forged club.  For a higher handicapped player like me?  I have no idea - I only demoed a half dozen clubs.  But I did like how they looked, how they felt, and how they hit. I wouldn't think for a minute that my personal, very subjective experiences hitting different brands of golf clubs enables me (or anyone else doing the same thing) to conclude that one brand name club is a "better" club than another.  Why would you?  One brand may be better for a particular person than another but unless one brand's got some actual QC problems, there are no "best" or "worst" brands.

First of all, horrible examples... Pizza is better than a hamburger and blondes are hotter than redheads... With that said, I try to hit all the big brands when choosing a new club and ALL of them make good clubs. It all comes down to what is best for you. I always seem to end up with TM, love their equipment, but always try to give everyone else a chance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by clutchshot

With that said, I try to hit all the big brands when choosing a new club and ALL of them make good clubs.

It all comes down to what is best for you. I always seem to end up with TM, love their equipment, but always try to give everyone else a chance.

Yeah just about all of the companies are going to have at least one model club that would work. With all of the options it can be a puzzle to find the right one though. More important than the brand is the MOI, off set, weight distribution, and the shaft.

My son got some (pre-owned) clubs a few weeks ago that I like. The shorter irons are Tailormade Tour Preferred MBs and the longer irons are Tailormade Tour Preferred MCs. It was very easy to square the club face up with them with no effort when I hit them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where did he buy them from?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by uscfan

where did he buy them from?

Not really sure. Probably tailormadepreowned.com

Whichever site it was he was able to order them with standard lofts and lies, through the 3 iron (instead of the 4 iron), and with Project X 6.0 rifle shafts that he wanted.

Surprisingly when he took them to get the lofts and lies checked as soon as he got them they were all standard and all on the money. It's not unusual for the lofts and lies to be all over the place with a new set of clubs so I don't know if they were that accurate from the factory or if the previous owner already had them set.

He really didn't want to change clubs but had no choice because the grooves on his old clubs were non-conforming to the new rules.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been playing Nike SQ Machspeed irons and woods for the last couple years and love them.  Nike has been known to make clubs for more athletic golfers.  People who can get some club speed on the downswing.

If you're a 70 year old whose driving it 150 off the tee Nike clubs are not going to be for you, regardless of the model.  However if you're younger, and fairly fit and athletic Nike clubs are a real standout in my book.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of years back, I got to test out some Nike VR split-cavity irons. Although geared for "better players," and despite having DG S300 shafts (I swing R), I got through the ball fairly well. Only problem would have been a loss of distance (R300 SL might have solved this).

Last May I went to a golf expo, and found vacancies at the Nike tent about lunch time. I spent about a half hour hitting the VRS-Forged irons, shafted in an NS Pro 890 Stiff shaft (sub-100 grams). I hit the ball quite well, even got some OK 4i shots off the turf.

I'm getting the sense that most of the major club manufacturers make at least one model of irons I could play, providing I had the right shaft.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I used to think the same about Nike clubs years ago, but still kept an open mind. When the Nike SQ came out, compared to other drivers, this I hit pretty well and purchased a preowned one in my price range. Even though I switched to a Titleist for a few years, that first Nike driver changed my mind about the quality and performance. Just recently, I got better numbers with the new Covert compared to a 913 and switched from my 910.

Right now, I have the Nike VR Pro Blades, but IMO an MB will perform the same as any other MB club. For this, I just looked for esthetics and the Nike had the thin topline I prefer - TM, Titleist, Mizuno all had relatively thicker toplines compared to the Nike.

I do agree that all manufacturers makes a club for just about anyone, but sometimes you hit a club better than another.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nike in the bag and am a club longer than I was with my old Taylormade racs.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a nike fairway wood i use and i love it. Also had some slingshots 4 or 5 yrs ago and they were decent clubs for me at the time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      I think you seriously underestimate the difference in the level of dominance each had, when you lump them together as standouts of their caliber, because the calibers were not the same at all.  For the years 1997 through 2007 Tiger was the best player for every single year except 1998 and 2004, and for both 1996 and 2008 he was clearly the best player for the portion of the year he was active. You will find it a challenging task to find anything like that number of years for which Jack was the best.  He was always in the top 3 or so, but not that many years where he was the best.  That is why he has so many fewer POY awards and NO Vardons. Not only did Tiger have more years as the best player for the year, his dominance in those years was far beyond anything Jack ever did in HIS best years.  Tiger had winning streaks of 7, 6, and 5.  Jack's longest was 3 (which isn't even as long as Tigers 4 consecutive MAJORS).  There is the consecutive cut record.  The record setting winning margins in various majors.  The record setting margins by which his stroke averages beat his competitors.  
    • How do I organize a charity tournament to be a raging success?
      26 and a stroke? Holy smokes. Very sorry to hear that.  I have no idea how to organize a tournament but I have played in my share. The best ones are scrambles where you can organize your own team. The outcome has rarely ever mattered to us as long as we were well fed. Find a local restaurant (usually a bbq place) that wants to help you out and give a discount for advertising and spend your money there. Everyone will love to come for a good meal. Some nice prizes and maybe a raffle with some local companies offering you something if you are able to convince them it is worth it to give something to the cause.  Another thing I have seen work well is a silent auction at the end with donated items. I donated airline miles of which I have tons and 100,000 miles went for $205. Free gift for me and the cause got $205. 
    • How to eliminate blowup holes
      Haha - I get a couple of reputation points for a post and then go and have a blow up hole. Good drive, left myself 145 in down hill (8i), aimed #deadcenter, pulled 2 shots 25 yards left out of bounds, made 9 (+5) in a 9 hole round of (+11). A better way to avoid blow up holes - play stableford!
    • Donald Trump for president?
      Come on now, that's a bit uncalled for in Bernies case.  His political ideals might be way left, but he is at least honest and virtuous.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      I'll have to examine your other post closer. That's a good point to consider about the expansion to Continental Europe. Largely explains the poor showing of UK & Ireland in the 60's with many top tier European players not eligible. But considering the 200 million U.S. population base to 63 million in the U.K. & Ireland at the time, the latter did surprisingly well if population base was all that matters. IMO an established competitive golfing culture matters in producing elite players too. Those same European players excluded from Ryder Cup were always eligible for the Majors. The Ryder Cup is also a limited field event. It concentrates the 12 top players of the European Tour. From what I've read, depth of field is still stronger for the 'typical' PGA event, though some non-major Euro events are now stronger than some of the 'minor' PGA events. That is a significant change in Euro competitiveness from the 60's. To some extent that 30% drop sounds like it could be due to simply more international players occupying slots in the fields. If the period you mention covers when majors started to use OWGR for automatic qualification that has some not insignificant inherent issues in terms of strength of field. Having a guaranteed start rather than having to qualify would certainly make for an easier decision to travel to the event. But I'm not arguing against the policy decision facilitating international competition with a little points boost just trying to point out that field strength may not have been as weak in Jack's day as you seem to think. Compared to his peers, which is really the only thing I think you can do without speculative nuance I agree there's no question he's the best golfer. I'm really just arguing that standouts of their caliber (so many more wins so many more majors) than typical players among already elite fields are so rare, that I expect they both represent near the achievable human pinnacle in golf talent, which I don't think really differs within a few generations. The nuances of comparison across eras is interesting to me so I'll debate relative points, but I'm against arguments undervaluing Jack's achievements against 'weak fields'. They both faced very stiff competition.   I'm not dissing Jack. I think his achievements are amazing. I also think the same of Tiger's record. IMO winning percentage per start in the Majors is a very significant stat and Tiger has that in his favor (they are both top 10 and within ~ 2% of each other's number). That number is not the official one for Jack though, I truncated his Major starts to end at age 47, which I think is a reasonable cutoff for competitiveness. If Tiger competes as long as Jack did his major win % (up to age 47) might stay about the same, increase, or decrease (more likely), but he certainly won't match the 18 Majors if he doesn't get like 22+ more major starts between now and age 47.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. glinks
      glinks
      (43 years old)
  • Blog Entries