Just how good are Nike fairway woods?

[mattymz1]

If this guy is a 3.9 handicap then Nike is not for him. If he hits them great then he will obviously buy one, but if he is asking for a recommendation then my opinion is that Titleist or Taylormade is much better for a low handicap. Everyone on my golf team is a sub 5 handicap and no one has any nike woods. None of the scratch players at my country club play nike. Not one. One of the pros is a nike sponser, but thats it. All I'm saying is that this indicates that nike woods are geared towards high handicaps, of whom I know plenty that play Nike.

[907golfer12]

If this guy is a 3.9 handicap then Nike is not for him. If he hits them great then he will obviously buy one, but if he is asking for a recommendation then my opinion is that Titleist or Taylormade is much better for a low handicap. Everyone on my golf team is a sub 5 handicap and no one has any nike woods. None of the scratch players at my country club play nike. Not one. One of the pros is a nike sponser, but thats it. All I'm saying is that this indicates that nike woods are geared towards high handicaps, of whom I know plenty that play Nike.

No that could mean many things, people have the same mind set as you and flat out disregard Nike while looking for new sticks, so they don't even give them a try. Maybe those people, like me, have found clubs that they hit better then the Nikes, they don't hate them, they just found something they hit even better. Heck maybe you are selective in what you choose to remember in peoples bags, I mean I know that before I got they set I have now, I would always tell my mom that everyone had Titleist clubs, when really not that many people do in Alaska. My brain was just tricking me into thinking that since those were the clubs I wanted.

And also look at all of the players that use Nike clubs on tour, Tiger, Anthony Kim, KJ Choi, Trevor Immelman, Stuart Cink, Chad Campbell, and Paul Azinger (I know, not on tour, but a great player none the less.) When I was in Oregon last week everyone at the course that I was at had AT-LEAST 1 Nike club in the bag. I even played with one of the pro-shop employees who is a +2.x handicap and he is all decked out in Nike, nd shot a 68 from the tips that were rated at 74.0, you can't tell me that Nike clubs don't for work low-handicappers. And again, you did not say anywhere that this was your opinion, you passed it off as fact.

[Harry Longshanks]

If this guy is a 3.9 handicap then Nike is not for him.

Why?

(and show your work.)

[mattymz1]

No that could mean many things, people have the same mind set as you and flat out disregard Nike while looking for new sticks, so they don't even give them a try. Maybe those people, like me, have found clubs that they hit better then the Nikes, they don't hate them, they just found something they hit even better. Heck maybe you are selective in what you choose to remember in peoples bags, I mean I know that before I got they set I have now, I would always tell my mom that everyone had Titleist clubs, when really not that many people do in Alaska. My brain was just tricking me into thinking that since those were the clubs I wanted.

All of the tour pros that you listed are nike sponsors. They are all paid to play nike clubs and nike balls. The assistant pro you played with is also probably a nike sposor, just like the one at my club. They get thier clubs for free and they get paid to promote nike stuff. No where did I say that nike clubs don't work for low handicappers, I said that if you are a low handicapper you will probably have more success with other brands. A good golfer can get around with alomost anything, but it is the subtle differences in feel and sound that make titleist superior to nike. It's not about flat out disregarding nike when shopping. I'm just steering this guy towards clubs that will better suit his game. He was asking for a review of nike woods wasn't he? My review is that they aren't very good. If he hit them and loves them than more power to him.

[907golfer12]

All of the tour pros that you listed are nike sponsors. They are all paid to play nike clubs and nike balls. The assistant pro you played with is also probably a nike sposor, just like the one at my club. They get thier clubs for free and they get paid to promote nike stuff. No where did I say that nike clubs don't work for low handicappers, I said that if you are a low handicapper you will probably have more success with other brands. A good golfer can get around with alomost anything, but it is the subtle differences in feel and sound that make titleist superior to nike. It's not about flat out disregarding nike when shopping. I'm just steering this guy towards clubs that will better suit his game. He was asking for a review of nike woods wasn't he? My review is that they aren't very good. If he hit them and loves them than more power to him.

My point with the Tour players (and this is the second time I have said this to you now) that if they are good enough to win tournaments for tour players, then they are good enough for amateurs. Nike staffers, and their clubs have won half of the major's this year. And also please re-read my post, I didn't play with the assistant pro, I played with an employee from the pro-shop, he does not get his clubs for free, or at a discount, he must pay full price. And please give me a reason to why a low handicapper will perform better with other brands. The reasons that you gave in your post are very subjective, what you and I like in feel and sound could be completely different. And your posts have not been a review, they have been you trying to pass your opinion as fact.

[geezer]

All of the tour pros that you listed are nike sponsors. They are all paid to play nike clubs and nike balls. The assistant pro you played with is also probably a nike sposor, just like the one at my club. They get thier clubs for free and they get paid to promote nike stuff.

And all those guys on tour who play all Titleist clubs are sponsored by Callaway or Mizuno, are they?

Titty sponsors players too, you know. Clubs, balls, the whole nine yards, all for free!

[grantc79]

of top flight irons and persimmon woods and he would still strike the ball like a god. The reason Tiger plays Nike is because they gave him a fat contract, not because they make the best equipment. If you recall he played all titleist clubs when he was an amateur before he signed with Nike.

So you are telling me the highest paid athelete in the world need the money and he is probably losing tournaments that he could be winning playing with inferior clubs?

Is that really what you are saying? Do you not think that Titleist or Taylormade would offer him the same amount of money to play their stuff? Do you think that Tiger really agreed to downgrade from his old Titleist irons to his Nike ones for some extra money or do you think the quality is the same? Funny I have heard about him talking about winning more tourneys and chasing down Jack, but I've yet to hear him talk about how much Nike gives him vs. some other company.

Everyone on my golf team is a sub 5 handicap and no one has any nike woods. None of the scratch players at my country club play nike. Not one. One of the pros is a nike sponser, but thats it. All I'm saying is that this indicates that nike woods are geared towards high handicaps, of whom I know plenty that play Nike.

Either that or fanboys like yourself tend to all like to be twinkies and match each other on the course?

Nike has more wins than anyone else on the tour don't they? Best player in the world plays them? Can you explain why? Maybe your 5 handicap or less golf team isn't good enough to play Nike yet?

They get thier clubs for free and they get paid to promote nike stuff.

Do you think that Sergio isn't paid to play Taylormade?

I'm sure Phil plays those Callaway's for free? You didn't think this through very well did you.

[907golfer12]

Do you think that Sergio isn't paid to play Taylormade?

Either that or fanboys like yourself tend to all like to be twinkies and match each other on the course?

So you are telling me the highest paid athelete in the world need the money and he is probably losing tournaments that he could be winning playing with inferior clubs?

You do know that there is a multi-quote button just to the right of the quote button

[Harry Longshanks]

He was asking for a review of nike woods wasn't he? My review is that they aren't very good.

Again:

Why? (and show your work.)

[mattymz1]

So you are telling me the highest paid athelete in the world need the money and he is probably losing tournaments that he could be winning playing with inferior clubs?

Obvously nike offered a much larger contract than titleist or taylormade, otherwise he would be a titleist sponsor. Tiger certainly doesn't need extra money, but he clearly enjoys it. Do you think Tiger really agreed to advertise gilette razors because he thought the gave the closest shave and he wanted the whole world to know, or do you think they paid him a boatload of money? Do you think Tiger approached nike and said, "Your clubs are by far the best out there I have to play them!" or do you think nike approached Tiger and offered him a fat contract, because at that point nike was new in the golf club industry and was willing to pay for a big name to promote their stuff. It's all about the benjamins in professional athletics. And no he isn't losing tournaments because of his nike clubs. Tiger Woods is a gross extreme in this situation. HE CAN PLAY WITH ANYTHING. I'm talking about non-sponsored low handicappers in general. What I said wasn't declared as fact. There is no fact when you are talking about golf equipment. I am just telling this guy that I believe titileist woods to be superior to nike woods.

[907golfer12]

...What I said wasn't declared as fact. There is no fact when you are talking about golf equipment. I am just telling this guy that I believe titileist woods to be superior to nike woods.

Actually up until the end of this post you have in fact been trying to pass your opinion as a fact. In this post you said that you believed Titleist was better and that's fine.

[Harry Longshanks]

I am just telling this guy that I believe titileist woods to be superior to nike woods.

And the reason for that would be:

Why? (and show your work.)

(is there an echo in here?)

[mattymz1]

I beleive that titleist woods have a much better feel, sound, and look compared to nike. I think nikes are an eyesore compared to titleist, and I am sorry that I wasn't clear that this was merely my opinion. However it is a fact that Tiger plays nike because they offered him an enormous amount of money, not because one day he decided to switch sponsors. Nike was the highest bidder, otherwise he wouldn't have switched to them. Granted, now that he has been on the nike staff for so long and is such a big part of their image, I think he has some input on the design of some of their clubs (at least the forged blades).

[Harry Longshanks]

I beleive that titleist woods have a much better feel, sound, and look compared to nike. I think nikes are an eyesore compared to titleist,

So, the fact that some people hit them extremely well and play them much better than, say, a Titleist FW (including many low handicappers) has no bearing on your opinion that they are "garbage"? That is, in your opinion, results are irrelevant, only aesthetics. Or the fact that some people prefer Nikes for their sound and/or feel and/or look over a Titleist FW - that must mean that they like "garbage" in your opinion? Do you see what I'm getting at here?

[mattymz1]

So, the fact that some people hit them extremely well and play them much better than, say, a Titleist FW (including many low handicappers) has no bearing on your opinion that they are "garbage"?

I never said that results are irrelevent. As a matter of fact I said that if he hit them well then he will buy them. You are missing the point. He asked for a REVIEW. My review is that nike is inferior to titleist. If there are low handicappers that play nike that is fine, but that doesn't change my opinion. So no that has no bearing at all. If some good players prefer strange shaped heads on loud sounding drivers and fairway woods than thats fine, but I think the general consensus is that the majority of low handicappers prefer more traditional looking clubs, like titleists.

[907golfer12]

I never said that results are irrelevent. As a matter of fact I said that if he hit them well then he will buy them. You are missing the point. He asked for a REVIEW. My review is that nike is inferior to titleist. If there are low handicappers that play nike that is fine, but that doesn't change my opinion. So no that has no bearing at all. If some good players prefer strange shaped heads on loud sounding drivers and fairway woods than thats fine, but I think the general consensus is that the majority of low handicappers prefer more traditional looking clubs, like titleists.

So the old Ignite 460 that looks just like my Titleist 907 D2 is not traditional? Or the SQ (the originals and last year models) that are shaped round and have almost a completely black crown aren't traditional? Or the Nike Forged Blades, or the CCi Forged aren't traditional? The SV's don't look traditional? The Nike Unitized Leo isn't traditional? And as I will say yet again saying "Nike clubs suck" is NOT a review, it is your opinion, but you never said that in any of your posts, you came across acting like it was a fact.

[EquipmentJunkie]

The only thing non-traditional about Nike is the name, some golf snobs just can't stand the nike stamp on a golf product. They are doing the same thing all the other golf OEM's out there are doing.

[mattymz1]

So the old Ignite 460 that looks just like my Titleist 907 D2 is not traditional? Or the SQ (the originals and last year models) that are shaped round and have almost a completely black crown aren't traditional? Or the Nike Forged Blades, or the CCi Forged aren't traditional? The SV's don't look traditional? The Nike Unitized Leo isn't traditional? And as I will say yet again saying "Nike clubs suck" is NOT a review, it is your opinion, but you never said that in any of your posts, you came across acting like it was a fact.

Last I checked we were talking about nike woods not irons or wedges. Recent ones, not the ignite. All SQs have the silver half-moon on the back (not traditional), and last years model sounds like an aluminum baseball bat. Also, a review of something is someone's OPINION of it, not a definiton. Just how good are nike fairway woods? My review is that they suck. My opinion is that they suck. They are the same thing. I am just one person, and you may disagree with my review, but it is still a review. Golf Digest reviewed the titleist 906 as the top fairway wood. That was their review, that doesn't mean everyone needs to go buy a titleist wood, it is an opinion whose purpose is to guide someone that is looking for help.