Jump to content
IGNORED

Golf shoes


Note: This thread is 5063 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

I have tried many different brands, and for me Ecco and Adidas are the top 2. I just picked up a new pair of Adidas Tour 360 4.0 Sport on Ebay for $62, shipped. They are mostly mesh, which is extremely comfortable on humid days in the Bluegrass. I really like the thinness of the sole as well. You can feel slope on the course even easier. Highly recommend them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have tried many different brands, and for me Ecco and Adidas are the top 2. I just picked up a new pair of Adidas Tour 360 4.0 Sport on Ebay for $62, shipped. They are mostly mesh, which is extremely comfortable on humid days in the Bluegrass. I really like the thinness of the sole as well. You can feel slope on the course even easier. Highly recommend them.

wow, il have to check ebay then. is the mesh waterproof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Im looking to buy some new golf shoes. My budget is around 100 bucks, anyone have any favorites?

For $100 bucks you should be able to procure 2 or 3 pairs if you shop wisely.

If your playing with 10 yr old shoes you obviously don't play often enought to warrent spending $100 on shoes anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


i'd golf barefoot if i wasnt worried about cutting my foot on twigs and stuff

My Clubs:
Ping I3 + blade 3-pw
9.5 09 Burner with prolaunch red
Nickent 4dx driver
Taylormade Z tp 52, 56, 60
YES Carolyne putter

Link to comment
Share on other sites


i'd golf barefoot if i wasnt worried about cutting my foot on twigs and stuff

Guy on my high school team never wore golf shoes. He was a 5 handicap. Fred Couples wears boat shoes with no socks, lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites


lol ya, its important but not that important
Well its really important but its not as important as swing mechanics. If you have bad mechanics, golf shoes probably arent gonna help a lot
I golf our really nice pitch and putt barefoot haha its awesome.

My Clubs:
Ping I3 + blade 3-pw
9.5 09 Burner with prolaunch red
Nickent 4dx driver
Taylormade Z tp 52, 56, 60
YES Carolyne putter

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Fred Couples wears boat shoes with no socks, lol

No he doesn't. The ones he had on during the Masters are Ecco golf shoes, like

these . Click on the 'Golf Street' link to see those weird black ones with the yellow dots on the side. As for me, I like Adidas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


another vote for the powerband 3.0's. love mine.

:cobra: Speed ld-f 10.5 Stiff
:snake_eyes: 3 & 5 Woods
:adams:A4 3 hybrid
:bridgestone: J33 Forged Irons 4-pw
:ping: 50th Aniv. Karsten Ansr Putter56*, 60* wedges

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Im not meaning to hijack a thread here.. What are the benefits of having golf shoes compared to street shoes?

Depends on what you mean by street shoes. If you mean flat-soled leather "wear to the office" shoes, golf shoes will keep you from slipping all over the place on flat ground - anchor your feet. If you're talking about hilly/sloping lies, golf shoes will keep you from hurting yourself.

Now, athletic shoes with nubbie spikes (1/8" in diameter) can do the job also. I wear these when I go to the range so I don't overswing or try to kill the ball.

Focus, connect and follow through!

  • Completed KBS Education Seminar (online, 2015)
  • GolfWorks Clubmaking AcademyFitting, Assembly & Repair School (2012)

Driver:  :touredge: EXS 10.5°, weights neutral   ||  FWs:  :callaway: Rogue 4W + 7W
Hybrid:  :callaway: Big Bertha OS 4H at 22°  ||  Irons:  :callaway: Mavrik MAX 5i-PW
Wedges:  :callaway: MD3: 48°, 54°... MD4: 58° ||  Putter:image.png.b6c3447dddf0df25e482bf21abf775ae.pngInertial NM SL-583F, 34"  
Ball:  image.png.f0ca9194546a61407ba38502672e5ecf.png QStar Tour - Divide  ||  Bag: :sunmountain: Three 5 stand bag

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Another vote for the Adidas Powerband 3.0/Tour 360 shoes. I've had several pairs of Nikes and Foot Joys; I like the footbed, traction and support of the Adidas best so far.

Agree - you can get Addidas Tour 360 ltd on for $100 now. This is a $300 shoe that being closed out. I have three pairs and sine I bought them I never wear my Ecco's, Footjoys or Etonics.

Driver R7 Superquad NV 55 shaft or Bridgestone J33 460 NV 75 shaft
3 and 5 Wood X
Hybrid original Fli Hi 21* or FT 22*
Irons AP2
Wedges Vokey 52* - 8 , 56* 14, 60*-7Putter California CoranodoBall TP RedGPS NeoRange Finder- Bushnell Tour V2 When Chuck Norris puts spin on the ball, the ball does not...
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 vote for footjoy, i have the footjoy synergy and they are great, had the dryjoys before, they where a bit narrow other than that no complain great shoes !!

In my sasquatch tour stand bag i carry
G15 driver 9 degree
diablo edge 3 wood
G10 5 wood
diablo 3 hybrid X-22 (4-pw) 588 (52 degree) (60 degree) redwood putter

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I bought last years adidas 3.0's for $79 on TGW, I know the technology is much better 12 months later but I don't notice it in my swing. I like Adidas shoes, but buy last years model. $200 buck for a shoe...maybe if it's a guccer
Link to comment
Share on other sites


my problem with the adidas shoes is they're 10 pounds
if you walk 18 holes with any hills that'll be annoying at the end

My Clubs:
Ping I3 + blade 3-pw
9.5 09 Burner with prolaunch red
Nickent 4dx driver
Taylormade Z tp 52, 56, 60
YES Carolyne putter

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 5063 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

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


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • Was that a low spinner from Viktor on 4 at Valhalla? From the first cut, I worries it would fly past the flag, then it stops dead.
    • Day 37: Played 18. Didn’t execute my piece every swing, but when I did the results were solid (8 GIR + 5 nGIR, 79). 
    • Iacas- Can you please post all the data behind field strengths? Thank you very much!
    • New 3W is pretty good  I hit a good drive actually but straight into a headwind so it left me far enough back from the trees to attempt something stupid. So naturally, with a new 3W in the bag, I wanted to see what it could do. Hit a high draw directly over the trees and couldn't see where it ended up from the fairway, but I knew I hit it well. I doubt that's the optimal play for scoring well in the long run but it felt good to do.
    • I'm sure you've read this, but I just have to post it, here, again, for everyone who hasn't. It changed my thinking forever and irrevocably on this exact topic:  "We don't say "the golfers are more talented" today. We say "there are more talented golfers today." "More" meaning they are far more numerous, not more talented. Talent is random. Only a small percentage of people win the talent lottery --- for world class golf, way less than 1%. And there's no telling whether the most talented player of any period, including this one, was more talented than Jack, or Jones, or Vardon. It's absolutely unknowable. What IS knowable, though, is that the base population is larger, so whatever percentage of people are born with golf talent, there are a lot more of them today than there were 50 years ago. What is knowable is that training and coaching is vastly improved. Hogan had to, in his words, "dig his swing out of the dirt" by hitting millions of golf balls. Today, they have radar and laser and the Minolta super duper high speed swing cam, and they know exactly how every little swing tweak affects their spin rate and launch angle and apex height -- stuff nobody had any clue about in Jack's day. So 50 years ago, if you had 100 guys born with golf talent take up golf, maybe 30 of them would find their optimal swing. Today, it's probably over 90. What is knowable is that the huge purses, and the fact that Tiger was the world's richest and most famous athlete, and not just the world #1 golfer, is making golf the first choice of more young athletes, rather than just the guys who couldn't make the "real" sports teams in school. So if you had 100 guys born with multi-sport talent 50 years ago, most of them played golf for fun, if at all. Today, a lot more of them concentrate on golf as their main sport. And what is knowable is that travel is much faster and cheaper now, so almost every world class player shows up for almost every major and WGC, and for many of the regular PGA events. 50 years ago, the second or third best player in, say, Australia, often didn't even play in the British Open, let alone a PGA event. So all the PGA events, and three of the four majors, had only a handful of international players, and the fourth major had only a handful of Americans. None of that is speculation. It is a verifiable fact that there are over twice as many people in the world today than there were 50 years ago. It's a verifiable fact that the purses today are hundreds of times as high as they were 50 years ago --- Tony Lema got about $4200 for winning the 1964 Open; today, it's about $3.5 million. It's a verifiable fact that virtually all the world top 100 play every major they are eligible for, instead of only a handful playing any events that require overseas travel. It's not knowable exactly how all of that combines, but a good indication is the number of entries in the US Open. To enter the US Open requires both top 1% talent for the game, and a serious commitment to it. There were about 2400 entrants per year 50 years ago. This century, it's consistently over 9000, well over three times as many. It's true that, mostly because of the time and expense, the number of duffers recreational players has declined, but they never had any influence on field strength, anyway. High school kids on the golf team still play all they want, for free. What do you have to counter that? Nothing but your belief that there were half a dozen golf phenoms all at the same time in the 60's, and none today, now that Tiger's past his prime. You're entitled to that opinion, but what facts do you have to back it up? Only the number of majors they won. But how many majors would Phil have won if the fields were like they were 50 years ago? Mickelson finished second in the US Open to Goosen in 2004, to Ogilvy in 2006, and to Rose last year. 50 years ago, odds are that none of those guys would have even tried to qualify for the US Open, since it required shutting down their schedule for a minimum of three weeks to travel to the US for sectional qualifying, with no guarantee that they would make it into the actual tournament. Michael Campbell, who beat Tiger with some amazing putting down the stretch in 2005, said that he would not have entered that year if the USGA hadn't established overseas qualifying sites, so he didn't have to travel to enter. How would Phil look next to Arnie with those three US Opens? Eight majors, and a career Grand Slam. And how would Tiger look if Michael Campbell, Trevor Immelman, Angel Cabrera, and YE Yang had stayed home, like most international players did in the Jack era? I'll make it even simpler for you, since you follow women's golf. How much better would the US women look today, if there were no Asians on tour? Or even just no Koreans? Well, it looks like you're going to crow about the lack of current talent every time a guy backs into a win for the foreseeable future, but come on. The Valero was a 40-point tournament, which makes it one of the weakest regular PGA events, barely above the John Deere Classic. And the tournament committee knows that most top players don't like to play right before a major, so they try to attract the few who do by making it as close to major conditions as possible, to help them fine tune their games. A weak field facing a tough setup is not a recipe for low scores, but you still insist on taking one bad week and comparing it to the majors of your hazy memory, even though you seem to have forgotten epic collapses by the likes of Arnie, who managed to lose a seven shot lead over the last 9 holes of the 1966 US Open. And who knows how often something like that happened in a low-rent event? I don't know if Tiger was more talented than Jack, or even Trevino. All I know is that there are many solid reasons to believe that in order to win a tournament, he had to beat around three times as many talented golfers, even in most of the regular tour events he's won, as Jack did in a major --- especially the Open, where Jack only had to beat as few as 8 other Americans, at a time when probably 60-70 of the world top 100 were Americans.  I don't say it's true by definition, as you claimed, but I say it's the way to bet, based on facts and logic."  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...