Golf

[Tigers of Old]

Tip: dont go down the Niblick or other cheapo route. It will cost you in the end. Spend for the long run on well built more solid shoes and it will save you big time.

Cheers Red.

Seven Pairs hey? One for every day of the week? ;D

Comfort and durability is what I'm after.
I was looking at a pair of Footjoys the other day. Mighty nice looking shoe. A bit pricier than I thought but I take on board what you say.
Had a look at some Nikes too.

Perhaps a stupid question but does the casual golfer(me) really need them and do they add that much to your game?
Previously I've just used sandshoes. What makes the difference?

 

[Mr Brightside]

Unlike Amelda Marcoss ToO,you only need one brand of shoes an that is Foot Joy the others are just new to the trade an still cant get it right ;D

You do need good golf shoes because of 1 all the walking 2 all the twisting 3 dirt,rocks,sand,water,sticks, spilt beer are all part of what a golf shoe goo's through each round 4 dont forget grip an balance very important in a golf shoe.

Best value for money shoe without doubt on the market is the FJ E comfort just over $100 in Oz not sure over there though

 

[Mr Brightside]

A Tampion 2nd in Indonesian Open, get on the Tampo train

 

[Tigers of Old]

Best value for money shoe without doubt on the market is the FJ E comfort just over $100 in Oz not sure over there though

Good man CC.

 

[Michael]

A Tampion 2nd in Indonesian Open, get on the Tampo train

Good idea CC, looks like ive gotta get of the Bugs Bunny Roller Coaster

 

[Redford]

Certainly the most duarble golf shoes I’ve ever had were a pair of white Footjoys during the 90’s. 100% leather with leather sole. Cost a lot at the time, but I was playing 2-4 times a week and going to the range on other days yet they lasted 6-7 years. Great shoe. Not as comfortable as the newer ones nowadays, but a lot stronger.

Here’s another tip. Most golfers drag their rear foot a bit when hitting a shot. Over time, the sole starts to separate from the upper at the toes. A good shoe will 1) be built to resist this and 2) even if it does start to separate over time, the construction is such that you can stich the sole back down with tough cat gut. These shoes will last for years.

(Soft spikes: biggest marketing ploy/rip off ever.)

 

[Michael]

(Soft spikes: biggest marketing ploy/rip off ever.)

I miss the metal spikes. Loved the sound they make on a tiled surface, just like screw in footy boots.
Soft Spikes when its frosty, just a disaster.

 

[Michael]

(Soft spikes: biggest marketing ploy/rip off ever.)

I miss the metal spikes. Loved the sound they make on a tiled surface, just like screw in footy boots.
Soft Spikes when its frosty, just a disaster.

 

[lefty]

Dunlop Volleys!

 

[Mr Brightside]

(Soft spikes: biggest marketing ploy/rip off ever.)

I miss the metal spikes. Loved the sound they make on a tiled surface, just like screw in footy boots.
Soft Spikes when its frosty, just a disaster.

Not suprised your club dosent allow soft spikes Mick :,Pretty sure a lot of players in the US still were metal.

The Classics would be the shoe Red,come along way in recent years but still a tad heavy

 

[Redford]

Yep. The Classics line. Thats them. Very heavy compared to todays shoes, but a mega solid golf shoe. They dont make 'em like that anymore.

Soft spikes are a joke. Besides the fact they offer inferior grip, they wear out in no time, which is exactly what the shoe suppliers want i.e. so you have to keep buying their crappy spikes.

Heaps of Tour players still wear metal spikes e.g. Phil Mickelson and Ernie Els who refuse to wear shoes with sub standard grip.

And yes, some clubs actually ban soft spikes, the reason being that unlike metal spikes which aerate the greens, soft spikes just create indentations in the greens.

Soft spikes: biggest con ever.

 

[Disco08]

(Soft spikes: biggest marketing ploy/rip off ever.)

The difference between greens that have had 200 comp players walk on them with metal spikes as opposed to soft spikes is huge. I don't see how you can think soft spikes are purely a money making scam. The condition of just about every course's greens around the world has improved dramatically because of them.

If you guys are looking to buy golf shoes PM me for some good prices.

 

[Redford]

(Soft spikes: biggest marketing ploy/rip off ever.)

The difference between greens that have had 200 comp players walk on them with metal spikes as opposed to soft spikes is huge. I don't see how you can think soft spikes are purely a money making scam. The condition of just about every course's greens around the world has improved dramatically because of them.

If you guys are looking to buy golf shoes PM me for some good prices.

As someone who's old man was a Superintendent for over 15 years, I gotta disagree with you Duckman.

The only way greens may be helped by soft spikes over and above metal ones is if the greens are in a fragile state to begin with, otherwise, as the USGA has proved, they don't do jack for greens and in fact in certain cases can actually make the condition of some greens worse.

 

[Mr Brightside]

Been good mates with one of Melbournes finest Supers,he has no issue with metal spikes over soft spikes an as you have said Red finds Metal do's some good.
I will be back on the sandscrapes soon an I will take Lefty's advice an go the dunlop volleys

 

[Redford]

Where clubs have small greens, or where the greens are as I say in a fragile state e.g. hard, crusty greens infested with poa, then yeah...there's some benefit to soft spikes. But otherwise, I dont reckon there's any.

Pinehurst CC in the US bans them, as do certain high end courses in Britain.

Is it Royal Melbourne or the Heath that has banned them as well ?

 

[Mr Brightside]

Not sure ,all I know is say 12 months ago only one course in the Sandbelt region hadn't banned metal

 

[Mr Brightside]

Actually be very intrested to see if anyone has done the Pelz" lumpy donut effect" between Metal an soft,surley the soft would be worse.

Think I may just head down to KK for a bite ;D

 

[Disco08]

The only way greens may be helped by soft spikes over and above metal ones is if the greens are in a fragile state to begin with, otherwise, as the USGA has proved, they don't do jack for greens and in fact in certain cases can actually make the condition of some greens worse.

So why does the USGA ban metal spike usage in it's amateur tournaments, including NCAA events?

Both these quotes come straight from the USGA website:

" The conventional golf shoe spike not only caused severe damage to the grass plant, but the rounded shoulder of the spike also caused significant soil compaction and delayed grass recovery for weeks beyond that of other shoes. The ripple sole shoe soon dropped from the golfers' favor (and was banned by some clubs) because of the distortion it caused to the putting surface. The modified golf shoe spike, with the shoulder either flat with the sole or else recessed within the sole, proved to be less damaging to soils and turf, and it is still manufactured today for golfers who prefer spiked shoes but who are concerned with preserving putting green quality. "

" Both the player and the grass grower have a right to be concerned over golf shoes and what they are doing to the playing quality of our turf. But there is another, less visible factor that also deserves attention. There is increasing concern over the added costs in labor, aerifying, topdressing, mowing, weed control, cup changes, etc., brought about by spiked shoes. William H. Bengeyfield, one of the authors of this article, believes that $10 million is a conservative estimate, and he attributes that to course conditioning alone. What of the additional costs in replacing pro shop and locker room carpeting, asphalt and concrete paths, door sills, wooden steps, benches, electric cart flooring, dashboards, tee markers, etc.? Does the spiked shoe cost golf $15 million or $20 million a year? Whatever it is, there is no doubt of its destructiveness. "

On the issue of performance, only 25% of US tour players now use metal spikes, with that number significantly less on other tours. If soft spikes are clearly inferior to metal in terms of performance why are 75% of players on the richest and most demanding tour wearing them? If they give significantly less traction why are guys like Bubba Watson, Vijay Singh and Adam Scott wearing them?

 

[Michael]

(Soft spikes: biggest marketing ploy/rip off ever.)

I miss the metal spikes. Loved the sound they make on a tiled surface, just like screw in footy boots.
Soft Spikes when its frosty, just a disaster.

Not suprised your club dosent allow soft spikes Mick :,Pretty sure a lot of players in the US still were metal.

The Classics would be the shoe Red,come along way in recent years but still a tad heavy

Agreed. Not only are the Classics a bit heavy, quite a challenge to get the buggers on. Not to mention the exwhorebitant price.
With the leather sole they are hopeless in the wet.

 

[Redford]

The only way greens may be helped by soft spikes over and above metal ones is if the greens are in a fragile state to begin with, otherwise, as the USGA has proved, they don't do jack for greens and in fact in certain cases can actually make the condition of some greens worse.

So why does the USGA ban metal spike usage in it's amateur tournaments, including NCAA events?

Both these quotes come straight from the USGA website:

" The conventional golf shoe spike not only caused severe damage to the grass plant, but the rounded shoulder of the spike also caused significant soil compaction and delayed grass recovery for weeks beyond that of other shoes. The ripple sole shoe soon dropped from the golfers' favor (and was banned by some clubs) because of the distortion it caused to the putting surface. The modified golf shoe spike, with the shoulder either flat with the sole or else recessed within the sole, proved to be less damaging to soils and turf, and it is still manufactured today for golfers who prefer spiked shoes but who are concerned with preserving putting green quality. "

" Both the player and the grass grower have a right to be concerned over golf shoes and what they are doing to the playing quality of our turf. But there is another, less visible factor that also deserves attention. There is increasing concern over the added costs in labor, aerifying, topdressing, mowing, weed control, cup changes, etc., brought about by spiked shoes. William H. Bengeyfield, one of the authors of this article, believes that $10 million is a conservative estimate, and he attributes that to course conditioning alone. What of the additional costs in replacing pro shop and locker room carpeting, asphalt and concrete paths, door sills, wooden steps, benches, electric cart flooring, dashboards, tee markers, etc.? Does the spiked shoe cost golf $15 million or $20 million a year? Whatever it is, there is no doubt of its destructiveness. "

On the issue of performance, only 25% of US tour players now use metal spikes, with that number significantly less on other tours. If soft spikes are clearly inferior to metal in terms of performance why are 75% of players on the richest and most demanding tour wearing them? If they give significantly less traction why are guys like Bubba Watson, Vijay Singh and Adam Scott wearing them?

Firstly, to the best of my knowledge, the USGA does not manage NCAA events. The NCAA and USGA are 2 separate bodies that run their own events. The NCAA subscribes to the USGA's rules of golf and quite often has officials working with them, but as I say, the NCAA is its own body with its own statute. Maybe the NCAA bans metal spikes – I don’t know – but the USGA does not. What the USGA does is allow the site host of their numerous Championships to decide on whether or not to ban metal spikes. It does not have a blanket policy itself about the banning of metal spikes. If it did, then Tiger Woods, Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson and others wouldn’t be wearing the metal spikes that they do at the US Open.

I think you might be getting confused with what the USGA has written in that article Duckman. Its referring to the adverse affect that both the old, or “conventional” style of metal spike and also the old ripple sole had on greens. Not the modern day, or “recessed” metal spike that is available today which, as the USGA says itself “proved to be less damaging to soils and turf, and it is still manufactured today for golfers who prefer spiked shoes but who are concerned with preserving putting green quality.”

In any case, both the tests in that article were conducted in 1959 and 1983 ! Hardly relevant I would have thought.

As a USGA member who receives their regular journals, I’ve read numerous articles on tests and evaluations that the USGA carries out on turf management (usually with partnering Universities) and there is an abundance of conflicting positions on the supposed benefits of soft spikes.

As for the majority of US PGA Tour guys using soft spikes, what do you expect ? These guys are paid to play and use the equipment that these manufacturers put out. I wouldn’t expect anything else. They’ve obviously decided that the decrease in performance relevant to the angst it might cause with their sponsor if they decided not to wear soft spikes isnt worth the hassle to them. But otherwise, I’ll guarantee you that none of those soft spike wearers would argue that metal spikes don’t offer at least a bit better traction.

As I say, no doubt soft spikes would be beneficial in certain circumstances. I’d also say that the things are a damn site more comfortable to wear as well ! But as for the impact they have on the greens, well…I’m not convinced and never have been.