ClayHbg

I've been reading a lot of these Nike "epiphany" stories lately. I have never played Nike wedges and I don't play tour balls so I've always never played the 20XI-x balls, but the Nike products I do have in my bad are irreplaceable. I couldn't agree more about the Method putter. My SC Newport doesn't come close in terms of feel and distance control. My Nike driver and Method putter are my two favorite clubs by far.

Anyone who has played Nike clubs over the last 2-3 years knows their equipment is right up there with the top manufacturers. Most of the equipment out there right now is pretty comparable when it comes to quality.

Glad to see I'm not the only one. The Vaprs don't seem to get the same amount of hype as the Gamers, Srixons, or Bridgestones but they feel great and they're just a great ball all-around. And the fact that Dick's usually has them on sale for $20 a dozen doesn't hurt either.

Good point! The shoe itself isn't waterproof but the synthetic material they use is. So if you play in the rain your feet probably stay dry. If you step in a puddle that's deeper than the shoe laces, they won't.

Quote: Originally Posted by newtogolf You're right, all the shoes you listed are over $200 but part of that cost is all the "tech" that is added to the shoes. The Footjoy ICON and XPS-1, Adidas AdiPure, and Tour 360 ATV and Puma Super Cell Fusion are over $200 but high tech shoes with a lot of built in stability, etc. The Nike's are supposed to be minimalist shoes like the True, but at least the True offer a real full leather upper not a synthetic one. Leather isn't waterproof so they made the new TWs with a synthetic goretex-type material without a heavy, leather outer shell. If there's one thing Nike has never been accused of it's lack of technology in their clothing and footwear. I do however agree that they aren't the prettiest shoes I've ever seen, especially when they're worn with pants.

They are definitely pricey, and I wouldn't spend that, but there are many shoes out there that are a lot more expensive and aren't endorsed by Tiger. Adidas, FootJoy, Puma, and True all have shoes priced well over $200.

Quote: Originally Posted by bamagrad03 Quote: Does the LPGA hold tournaments are all-female clubs? If so then I'd have huge problem with that as well. Why? Why? Consistency. For the same reason I felt the PGA shouldn't be holding tournaments at clubs that exclude women. It's perfectly legal for a private clubs to exclude Whites or minorities (and there are many clubs that still do) but I'd say the same thing if the PGA held tourneys there.

I don't know about that, but we can agree to disagree on why Augusta was the club being targeted. I could definitley be wrong on this one (and I know many R&A; clubs exclude women), but I don't think the PGA holds tournaments at any other all-male clubs. I definitely see your argument. It's a good one. I don't necessarily agree with your premise here (considering that's a pretty big IF) but I hear your argument. It's a good debate to have. Coming from the South I happen to appreciate political correctness, but that's just me. Does the LPGA hold tournaments are all-female clubs? If so then I'd have huge problem with that as well.

Those tricky weasel words that cause you to read (or in your case re-read),comprehend, and think......they're so weaselly! I've never once suggested in any way that Augusta wasn't a private club. I merely said that, although they are private, they are held to a higher standard because of the monetary support they get from companies that receive public/government support and benefits. I also gave examples of other private institutions and how those same standards don't apply for the exact same reasons. It's fine to disagree, but I don't think I'm the one who's confused here. I know it's tricky but try stay with us.

Hahaha. Agreed.

Not if she (Ginni Rometty) declined Augusta's invitation to become a member...Augusta has not and never will reveal how many actual invitations go out every year. They only reveal those that accept. Part of the Augusta lure is the notion that no one in their right mind would ever decline an invitation so it's unlikely they'll ever reveal how many declined invites the get every year.

Come on man. You don't think the fact that IBM now has a female CEO had anything to do with this decision? Really? If you honestly think that Augusta hasn't been under constant and continued pressure from CBS and the boards of their former and current advertisers like Coca-Cola, AT&T;, and IBM (all of which have female board members) then you obviously don't understand how Fortune 500s work.

You want to be a Curves member? That's cool. I suggest you form a group and start protesting. There are plenty of equality groups that would be happy to take up your cause. But I'm guessing you merely want to argue, which is also fine. Yes....that is a straw man argument because (in regards to Martha Burk/Augusta) no one was arguing the premise that all exclusive clubs should be banned because they are discriminatory. If your club is TRULY private then you actually have a right to discriminate and Martha Burk herself stated that those clubs should be viewed differently than places such as Augusta. The same applies to your private residence. If you don't want white people in your house you have a right to disallow them from entering your home. Like I said previously, if men, women, Whites, Blacks, Asians or Latinos want to have their own exclusive/private clubs it's fine by me. That's their prerogative and no one is trying to prevent that. If you want to sit in a room with a bunch of other men that's totally cool with me as well. But when your club receives government money, tax benefits, or it is endorsed by companies that are funded by everyone's tax dollars then you have a different situation on your hands. If that applies to Curves or any other establishment then I agree with you 100 percent.

+1

Each year I seem to fall into my annual process of testing the newest mid-level balls (approximately $20-35) to find my "gamer" for that year. This year was no exception. At this point my wallet and handicap don't call for a tour ball and I can't seem to put them in the fairway to begin with. This Spring, based on reviews, I decided to buy and test the Top Flite Gamer, Bridgestone e6, Srixon Q-Star, and Nike Vapor Blacks. All are obviously great balls although I didn't like the feel of the Q-Star at all. The Bridgestone was incredibly straight but when I wanted/need to work the ball it all fell apart for me. I either couldn't get ball to draw at all or I would hook it OB. There was no happy medium for me. My best results came from the Gamers and the Vapor Blacks. Both balls were equally long and extrememly straight. The Vapors allowed me to work the ball a little more while the Gamers had a little more spin around the greens. I'd play either of these balls anytime without any hesitation whatsoever. My question is whether others have had comparable experiences with the Nikes? The Gamers get a lot of pub as being one of the best, affordable balls out there while the Nike Vapor Blacks seem to be a little overlooked. Thoughts?

People need to stop turning everything into a cause. Men aren't allowed to feel self-conscious? Why are only women granted that concession? For the record, I see NO problem with all-women health clubs. But I think it is absolutely ludicrous that the thought of men wanting a club just for men is in any way backed by hate or discrimination. Why is it the end of the world if guys just want a place they can escape to (in the same manner women are rightfully afforded)? Tired of double standards. This is the perfect example of a straw man argument. Create a position that no one has taken and argue against that. No one is trying to outlaw all men's clubs. There are all-male cigar, poker, health, and social clubs all over the country. There are also the same sorts of race-exclusive clubs. The difference (which I believe you understand but can't argue) is that those clubs don't benefit from millions of dollars in endorsements from companies that recieve federal money and they aren't featured on national TV with limited commercials every year.

If you can name a women's club with comparable money, prestige, and influence that Augusta has and you express a genuine desire to become a member, I guarantee people like Martha Burke would be happy to protest on your behalf. It's not about taking things away from men, it's about granting equal opportunities to women.

Shoal Creek and Augusta both excluded Blacks until 1990 (still hard to believe). Condi is now a member at both.

don't mean to be "that guy" by offering a 4th option, but the Gamer V2s are the best ball under $20 on the market. Hands down! (imo)

Rory played unbelievably this week and when he's "on" like he was yesterday no one can beat him. But it never ceases to amaze me....Tiger has won more tournaments this year than any other golfer. He's #1 on the money list and he's #1 in the FedEx standings. But when he finished T11 in a major the conversation immediately turns to how his career is over and/or he'll never win another major. But when Phil or Rory (or Westwood, Kaimer, or Donald) miss cuts repeatedly or finish far from contention...........it's nothing but silence!

Quote: Originally Posted by bhp1404 ...of course the Power Distance balls were terrible, thats why they cost like $10... hahahahahaha.....classic!

I think the biggest challenge the PGA face is its placement on the calendar. It's just WAY too close to the British for the average viewer to care. Viewers simply aren't "dying to see the next major" the way they are in anticipation of the other three. The fact that they change courses every year doesn't help, but that's far from the biggest issue this tournament faces.

They're so expensive Mizuno doesn't even mention them on their website.

I'm not sure about Charlottesville, but there are a lot of great, affordable courses in the Richmond area (I grew up there). My favorite is Hunting Hawk in Ashland. A great site to use is http://www.golflink.com/ .

You totally missed the sarcasm....