nike_golf

Actually, that's not true anymore. Nike started making their own balls at their own facilities starting this year w/ this ball. FYI, I play the 20XIx and have of course played the S version a few times. Both balls are great, IMO. Obviously, everyone is entitled to their opinion but some of what I'm reading seems pretty misguided, and I'm left scratching my head thinking, "how do you come to that conclusion"? Whatever though. That's the beauty of having multiple, great choices to choose from in regards to equipment in golf.

Well in my opinion I don't think it's a flop by any means. I feel the Penta is a very solid, good golf ball. I would rank it 3rd on a very competitive list behind the ProV1x and the 20XIx. That's obviously just me personally. As for why the popularity has died? I don't know. Doesn't it always w/ new equipment? That doesn't mean the product is any WORSE than when it was new. I don't know. I just think folks tried it, were lukewarm on keeping a new ball that didn't necessarily blow them away, and stuck to what they've usually shot. (ProV's, Bridgestone's, Nike's, etc etc) Do you know that sales have dropped? Or have any information confirming their decline in sales?

I watched a lot of the Solheim Cup from day 1. I enjoyed it. Congrats to team Europe are in order, although I do believe w/ a healthy Kerr there would have been a different outcome. That said. This and the Ryder Cup were both affected pretty heavily w/ the conditions. It was no surprise. I can't imagine the players enjoy playing in that and I do believe it takes away from the competition when players have to deal w/ the cold, rainy, windy and wet conditions. How about we start playing these events on neutral ground? Australia anyone? Middle East? Watching that kind of golf played over there gets old real quick.

My regular golfing partner isn't good. He's my "regular" partner because he loves the game as much as I do and he's a good friend. He's not consistent at anything. He doesn't do one thing particularly well. But, half way through the round, after a bad shot, I'll start hearing, "jease, I'm just not striking my irons well TODAY", or, "damnit, I just can't drive TODAY", or, "Jease, my short game is lost TODAY". I just want to scream at him and ask, "When have you EVER had a good full round striking your irons?", "When have you EVER drove the ball well in a full round?" But he's a good guy and a good friend. I bite my tongue and try to "coax" him into more lessons.

I didn't take Rocco's comments equating to him giving Tiger any kind of tips. I think Rocco sincerely wants Tiger to get back to doing what he does best, and that's play better than anyone else in the world. I think Rocco will be the first to admit he's not a position to give Tiger, or anyone else for that matter, swing tips.

So, this is going to save our planet (which, apparently is in dire need of being saved)? By saving a little paper/cardboard per case of balls? Ok................................

Why would anyone want to play w/ C. Kerr? Do some of you enjoy being frowned at and/or yelled at? I'd go w/ Alizahara Munoz and/or Beatriz Recari.

haha. It's not like I set out to copy him or anything like that because I didn't. I work w/ a pro and my swing worked into something similar to that of a Kucher, or a flatter, one plane swinger. It's worked out pretty well for me. To each his own. And I have to think it's his height (6'4) that makes his irons look so damn tiny, isn't it? Because you're right, it does look goofy.

haha. It's only 110 euro. Isn't that about $150? You have no problem throwing away that kind of money? Ok......... And I certainly am not worked up. You do whatever you want. (I'd still be interested in seeing pics)

I think it's safe to say he's got one of the more unusual swings on tour. And by saying unusual, I mean NOT fundamental and would equate to a ton of problems for a lot of folks if they were to try it. His backswing is quite long. He brings his arms way, way back ala John Daly. He keeps a lot of his weight on his right side, which is very evident when he hits the driver. Up until relatively recently I had a problem of ballooning balls off the tee. This was mostly caused by keeping my weight on the right side. It was a big problem for me and it's something I still fight w/ to this day to keep the flight lower, more penetrating and thus more distance. How he can keep his weight back and still hit it as far and well as he does is a mystery to me. It really is. And from what I've seen on a couple of the slo mo camera shots, he's hitting the ball off the top part of the face w/ the driver. Which is another thing I've struggled with because that again, will cause ballooning of the ball. But ol' Rory seems to get away w/ this too. The elongated backswing is something I continue to be amazed by as well. But, that's why they're pros. Bringing your arms way back, bending both the right and left arm but yet get the face back to square at impact has to take a ton of time to perfect. I'm in the single plane, flatter swing group. (ala Kucher) Going to that type of swing has made me a pretty decent golfer. I could never put it all together if I were to have such a long backswing. So, what am I missing? I certainly don't claim to be any kind of expert on swings, so it's very possible I'm totally missing the boat here.......

I was referring more to the driver than the putter. Yeah, I suppose putters would be a bit easier to "mask". The obvious shortcoming of fakes is the performance. I'm about positive that a fake R11 would have a couple pretty obvious, yet subtle flaws to it in regards to appearance alone, let alone the obvious differences in performance. Hence why I would like to see pics of the "cheap" R11. And yes, why anyone would want to still spend decent money on something that they probably know themselves to be fake is beyond me. It's illogical.

To the OP; I'd love to see pics of the R11 he got you. Or the Cameron for that matter.

I voted NO and here's why. Yes, the players and caddy's should and need to know the rules. This shouldn't be and I don't think is, disputed by anyone. However, that's not the question. You shouldn't allow/bring viewers into the equation. I can't argue that the DQ was the correct call, but the manner it was done by was wrong and unproffesional, IMO. It shouldn't have come to a viewer telling officials to look at a possible infraction. There should be enough officials on the course to watch these guys. To me, it's that simple. Isn't there an official on every hole? Wouldn't it be a pretty good idea to have an official or two maybe just watch the TV broadcast for possible infractions/issues? I know golf is the gentleman sport where players are supposed to call everything on themselves, but I don't live in a fairy tale world. I realize that there's millions of dollars at stake and leaving A LOT of potentially important infractions up to the players to call on themselves everytime isn't reality. I guess what I'm saying is, is that players shouldn't be solely left to be the umpire/official. "Well, all the more reason to make sure they follow the rules then. Even if that means with viewer help." Well, I actually agree w/ half of that logic. If they're out there competing for hundreds of thousands of dollars, then they damn should be able to have officials watch every hole, whether in person or through TV. As for the viewer help........ I believe any and all issues should be handled on site by the players and officials. I don't believe any outside "help" is necessary or professional. I believe if the officials were watching well enough or if there were enough there, they would have easily "caught" Villegas. What if this catches on and you have viewers calling in off the hook on players? How many officials are going to be busy looking at every "complaint" by every viewer? How many officials do you want to use for that purpose? What if the "TV officials" are too busy to get to looking at something before a certain players round ends? This is a professional sport. We the viewer WATCH. We shouldn't be part of it, even if the intentions are right. The outcry here should be aimed towards both Villegas and his opponent and the officials working the tournament. How was this even left up to a viewer? I believe that's the biggest and most important issue here.

Yes sir. I'm aware of that test 3 years ago. And yes, the Platinum ball wasn't a long ball, but it's also extinct. But, it was also the softest ball you could buy. I was more or less referring to an earlier post stating the Nike balls (past or present) aren't soft. Well, in actuality the Platinum was too soft, making that statement bunk. Today's One Tour and Tour D are fantastic balls. Aside from the folks who refuse to say anything good about anything Nike, I've read and heard nothing but good things about the balls. Especially considering the price on them. Check out the One Vapor balls. Those are great. Hell, if you want to talk distance, the 2010 released Crush is a great ball.

You could say I like Nike..... Without going into the big story of why/how I got into Nike Golf I'll just add that it is indeed the real deal in terms of equipment. Nike Golf has come a long, long way in a decade and they just keep improving. I've almost exclusively gamed Nike equipment since I picked up the game about 7 years ago. I get some looks and attitude even today, but that's a part of the reason why I game it. WIthout going into details about pieces of equipment, I must question how some of the posters can feel the ONE balls aren't good and/or soft? The Nike ONE Platinum and now ONE TOUR, are literally about the softest balls you can get. As for apparel, well, to me, it's the best there is.

Yep. :) .............

Depends on how my front nine goes. If bad, I buy three cans of beer for the back. Helps calm my nerves. If I have a poor front nine, 9 times out of ten my back nine is better. Is it because of the mild buzz? I don't know, but it works for me. I rarely go to the course with the plan to drink. During a pretty meaningless scramble tourney with three buddies on the other hand, yeah, I'll kick back and "loose" myself a bit.

I thought Foley had the best show thus far. I thought he was well spoken, clear with his points, and overall had some interesting things to say, especially for some who aren't that "educated" in certain aspects of the game. Like ball flight laws, swing mechanics, etc.. And generally he seems like a likeable guy too, which can go a long way with some people. Plus, aren't short people usually likeable? That all said, he does have his downsides, IMO. I'm no expert on Foley or his teachings but I caught myself squinting my eyes a few times about what he was saying. I knew he's into some un orthodox things, but the whole thing with molecules and other fancy science terms is just goofy, IMO. Will the average amateur have ANY use for that stuff? As for the S&T; swing mechanics. Is he not teaching the basics of the S&T; swing? Again, I'm no expert but it sure seems like he definitely leans that way. He says he's NOT an S&T; teacher, right? I guess it almost comes down to if you believe and like his teachings. Hank Haney on Saturday will probably say a thing or two to contradict what Foley said tonight. Again, who do you choose to model your swing too? In a way, having instructors teach certain things different ways adds even more confusion and difficulty to this already difficult game. Oh well.

You're actually making me feel better about my game by saying these things are ALMOST blades. So, I really DON'T want to disagree with you but I still (kinda) will. My current set of these irons is the third set of irons I've ever owned. I've hit a blade iron a few times but I know I'm not ready to go that route yet. So, I guess what I'm saying is that I don't have much experience with blades to compare this set to. BUT, these are still a cavity back iron with weighting in them to make them forgiving. BTW, I really have to disagree with your take that these have ZERO forgiveness. While not much, they do have SOME. My misses are off the toe. When I do that I immediately feel it, obviously, but the ball relatively stays on line. The distance is obviously altered though. So, by definition, you can't really compare them to blades just based on the thin top line, smaller head, etc. That's the MO of a "players" iron. Not as easy to hit as a GI iron but easier than a blade. But, really, are you saying that since I hit these well that I should look into getting blades? Feel free to say yes. I need an excuse to get the new Nike VR combo set this winter.

Immelman when he won the Masters. As for the clubs. I still game them. I've always liked them. I will have to say that they are a bit shorter of an iron, but you simply compensate for it. Some won't put up w/ that or won't want that, but if you know your distances, I don't think it's that big of deal. As for hitting them. They are more of a players club. I wouldn't recommend them to an inexperienced or high HCP golfer. I won't go as far as to call them "blade" like, but they do require you to have a decent ball striking skill to hit well. But, oh how sweet they are, IMO. Soft as butter feeling off the face, sharp look to them, nice look at address, good weighting to them, etc. Great set of irons.

Can't go wrong with either one. I went with a studio style. I love the insert, and that's about the only reason I chose it over the Select. I would give a slight nod to the Select in the looks department, but their both gorgeous putters. As for the custom work. I looked into sending mine in a short time ago and the options were plentiful. So, I'm not sure you can say SC offers more custom options in the Select model. I could be wrong, however. Try each out and get what you like best. That's about the best advice I can give.

So, what's the point of Fyruk's story? That a cheap putter can be as good as an expensive one? (for some, I will agree that that's probably true) Like iacas brought up, it's irrelevant, however. Should I post Tiger's winnings with his SC? But what point would that be making? That you need an uber spendy putter to win a lot? Again, it's a pretty dumb and quite meaningless "point".

I don't get some peoples attitude about SC putters. It's like some are personally offended at the site of one. My take is, is that I honestly and really loved the SC putter that I eventually bought. Some will assume I bought it for the name. They would be wrong. Look. I don't care what one person likes or dislikes in putters or golf clubs in general. Why should I care? But for some to basically bad mouth others and assume the reasons why they play certain clubs is down right childish. Grow up. And like I said earlier, why concern yourself about it? And even if someone wants to play certain clubs for the name, who cares? What's the problem?

You're really going to compare pro golfers' "issues" and discussing those "issues" in the forum to asking people if they've had sex with a cart girl and to tell a story in regards to that? Get a clue.

I don't get all this age talk in regards to the story. I would think a ball could kill a 25 year old just as easily as a 60 year old. I've been golfing for awhile now and can recall just one instance of a real close call. The guy sliced his tee shot to a seperate tee box where I was standing. I heard him yell fore but instead of taking cover I just glanced in his direction. As soon as I did that it bounces ten feet in front me carrying major speed. I literally did a "matrix" type move to dodge the ball. It wasn't one of those ballooned drives that just plop down, take a couple small hops and rests. No no, this thing hit the ground and was screaming. I guess I would never have guessed what could have been if it would have hit me in the head. Honestly, I don't wanna think about it. Take those fore calls seriously folks. I didn't, and I about paid for it.