nike_golf

Nothing personal indeed. But if you have a thread titled after a golf ball, folks who might be interested in knowing something about it will click the thread to probably want some information on it. I shared some personal experience w/ the ball. This is a public golf forum afterall...............

You don't think I have? The ProV1x basically IS a slightly harder, less spinny version of the ProV. Kind of like how the Nike One Tour D is a slightly harder, less spinny version of the One Tour. But, we're still talking urethane covered, premium golf balls here. They ALL putt great. They ALL react around the greens great. Sure, the ProV1 will spin and bite a bit more around the greens, but the difference isn't THAT great. Or atleast not as much as you're leading folks to believe. It's a fair statement to say the ball isn't for you. I obviously have no place to say what's good for you or not, but to say it putts and behaves like a rock is flat out nonsense.

While I agree many cheaper balls are better for a lot (probably most) golfers, I still have a hard time believing what you say about the ProV1x. I mean, I understand you're trying to make a point here, but to get to the point of basically lying (because I think you probably are) about a very good golf ball is reckless on your part. I mean, we're both similar in HCP but I just can't relate at all to what you're saying about the ProV1x. I think it's a great ball. I can't hardly believe you compared it to a cheap two piece rock.

I don't know but when I saw your thread title I had to chuckle a little bit. And chuckle in a good way. Along w/ the Top Flite gamer V2, I would put this ball second on my favorite "cheaper" ball list. I happened to find one of these things during a "screw around" round and the dang thing actually was a decent ball for me. Like the Top Flite gamer V2 balls, this ball surprised the crap out of me based on what I was doing w/ it and how I was shooting it. Just my .02.

Yes. What you said is very true and it's a whole other point about high cappers using premium balls. But, as I said, whatever. If a guy wants to spend the money to use premium balls and he thinks it helps his game, then who is anyone to tell him that's kind of stupid, right? (Even if we're right)

First off, I said MOST cheap(er) balls. Not all cheap balls. A topflite rock is in a league of it's own. Secondly, no, a high HCP'er is NOT going to be able to tell the difference FOR THE MOST PART a premium ball apart from a "regular" ball. A high HCP'er should be/is concerned about hitting it straight and hitting it onto greens in regulation. When/if that same high HCP'er gets better and is more consistent and then NEEDS and CAN USE that spin around the greens, and the "bite" of a premium ball, then yes, he will then be taking advantage of a premium ball that it was designed for. Until that point, no, a high HCP'er DOESN'T need a premium ball. But, like I said, if a high HCP'er can afford it and he doesn't mind basically blowing money, then more power to him....... Let's not kid ourselves though......

As someone mentioned, do a search on the Top Flite Gamer V2. In one thread, you'll see I wrote a nice post commenting on how I surprisingly really liked the ball. (I say surprisingly because, well, it's a Top Flite!) But seriously, for the price, I don't think you can beat it. You're a fairly high HCP'er playing $42 a dozen golf balls? I'm not picking on you or anything, but I just gotta wonder why some do that. I mean, play what you want, and if you can afford it, more power to you, but surely you know you probably won't/can't tell the difference in premium balls against MOST other, cheaper balls. No?

I was in southern Missouri when I golfed down there. I guess you can make a case for that part of Missouri being called "Midwest" or "Southern", but I digress. (Not that important) And when I was in Missouri golfing, I DID encounter marshalls and a starter on the first tee box. Just wanted to clarify that. Maybe I should have said upper midwest in the OP?

Hey fellas. Minnesota golfer here for about 7 years now. I'll get to the point of the thread; By a quick, rough estimated tally, I'd say I've golfed at around 50 different courses throughout my golfing "career" in the midwest. (South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa) I can count on one hand the number of times my round has been started by an official starter and I can say I've only seen a marshall at ONE course. And I had to go up to the Twin Cities to see that. Now, contrast that to my golfing vacations down south. I've golfed in Arkansas, Alabama, Florida and Missouri. I've been started by a starter AT EVERY COURSE and I would regularly see marshalls on the course during my time on the southern golf courses. It was always kind of funny to me. I always knew about marshalls and always knew what their job is, but before my trips down south, I've never even come across one. At my local course, it's usually the pro who would handle any slow play issues or any other issue that may arise out on the golf course. Even w/ that said, it still takes a pretty big problem to get him out there to address it. Is this "Minnesota/Midwest" nice at play? Do we not want to pressure golfers up here? Do I yearn for an official marshall at some of the courses up here? You bet. When/if my group encounters slow play, we know that the slow group ahead almost HAS to let us play through or we're either forced to say something to them or put up w/ it. I've had an unpleasant encounter or two w/ groups who don't like to be told they're holding my group up. BUT, w/ no marshall, we're almost forced to take things into our own hands to deal w/ slow play. Fellow midwest golfers, are there marshalls at courses that you frequent? Is this more of a southern thing? In my short but extensive golfing experiences, I would have to say yes.

But again, and this question was posed to Weezy. I would LOVE to see a link to a golf course that says they don't allow ANY kind of shorts.

I just wanted to respond to this part of your rant. (Everything else is a waste of time) What do you think I look like when I have my Nike khacki/Dri Fit PANTS on w/ my collered shirts? That I just got back from church? I look (and feel) just as much like a golfer w/ either pants on or w/ shorts on. (Even though I prefer pants) And, like I said, I know I look good for any golf course while wearing either. No matter what guys like you say/think.

Well, now we're comparing what we wear on a golf course to play golf and what we would deem "classy" off the course. This is getting confusing......... And I can relate to what people think you're doing ( or were doing) when wearing "golf attire". I'll walk into a local pub after a saturday night round in my golf attire and many times someone I know asks me how I shot without even asking if I was golfing.

Why can't a nice pair of khacki shorts be classy? How about a nice pair of Dri-Fit shorts? I wear both kinds. They're all Nike. I wear a nice Nike collered Dri Fit shirt tucked into either kind of those shorts. I think I look plenty classy.

Good point.

You can't be serious w/ that question. And, as someone else has asked you, show me a rule or a course that would turn you away if you came in khacki shorts. Again, if we're talking jeans/basketball shorts/sleaveless shirts I would be on the same page as you but cargo/khacki shorts are on such a different level that I can't believe someone wouldn't see the distinction. I play at a nice, private course. I play in many events on other very nice courses throughout the year. I have done so for years. I've never heard of or seen anyone have a problem w/ people wearing cargo/khacki shorts. Keep in mind I'm a guy who actually prefers to wear pants, but w/ the humid and hot southern Minnesota summers, wearing pants is pretty much out of the question on most days. I have to keep asking myself if this debate is even serious.

A nice pair of cargo/khacki shorts isn't in the same league as sleaveless jerseys/t-shirts/basketball shorts/tank tops/jeans/etc etc. Get a clue.

Which is another good point and another reason why I just find it hard to believe how ANY kind of pant is cooler than shorts. The humidity can get brutal here in southern Minnesota too. The other day the humidity was at 86% w/ a heat index of 110*. I know it gets hotter in other parts of the country, but w/ humidity like that, no pant in the world will keep you cooler over shorts. I don't get the, "it keeps my legs in the shade" reply. That's kind of like saying wearing a blanket will make you cooler.

Well, I can't say that I'm surprised by this. Jordan and Barkely share some thoughts on LBJ's decision. http://nba.fanhouse.com/2010/07/19/j...-lebrons-move/

Seriously? Since I have chicken legs that I prefer not to "show off", I actually prefer to wear a nice pair of pants. However, if it's 85* or hotter, I, along w/ 98% of the golfers on the semi-private course that I frequent, will be in shorts w/ a collered golf shirt. And, mind you, we look just fine.

Obviously, we're all golf fans who tend this forum. I'm definitely a BIG golf fan. That being said. This major was quite boring. And I'm not one to throw that term out lightly.

I know some of the pants have great whicking abilities and do a good job of keeping a person cool, BUT how can anyone claim that wearing pants is cooler than wearing shorts? I would think having half of your legs exposed and NOTHING over them HAS to be cooler than having anything over them. Common sense tells me that.

Which, in a nutshell, is/was my main point.

Neither did I and that's exactly what makes this ball awesome for the money.

Yes, he's easily the most popular face in golf, I'll never think/say any different. However, w/ Tiger you now have the added baggage PLUS all the money it would take to pay him. Would all the other golf companies "risk" their image to get him and pay him all that money? I'm not so sure. Yeah. Obviously I left a few Titleist guys out. You make a fair point in regards to that, but my point of Nike having a pretty strong lineup themselves still stands. And Titleist pays a lot to have their ball as the most used on tour. Besides, we don't even need to compare Titleist to Nike. I disagree to an extent. The reason Nike has had a hard time making people believers is that they're simply still relatively new to golf. Nike basically splashed into golf by signing Tiger in 2000 and then got serious w/ equipment. So, it's barely been a decade w/ them in golf. Throw in the fact that some of Nike's equipment designs have been and are non-traditional, many golfers simply won't go for Nike equipment. So, even though Nike makes equipment comparable to ANYONE else's, there will be many who simply won't either believe it or won't even want to give it a shot.

A year ago, you'd be right about the basis of Nike needing Tiger more than Tiger needs them. Today? Different story. And let's not forget that Tiger SHOULD/MIGHT feel a little gratitude towards Nike for sticking by him through his whole "ordeal". Gillette, AT&T;, Gatorade, etc. all dropped him like a bad habit. I really do believe Tiger appreciates Nike sticking w/ him, so I think he would have no problem making a putter change to make them even more happier. Again, that's pure speculation on my part. What kind of drink do you see Tiger drinking on the course now? (Hint - It's not Gatorade) That's an example of the kind of guy Tiger is and what he thinks of companies and how they might treat him. And who are the big Titleist guys? Stricker? Love III? I think I'd put Cink, Casey, Glover, Kim, Duval, Schwartzel and Leonard up against the Titleist lineup. And the last point: The folks who still believe Nike makes inferior equipment are foolish and ignorant.