We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Rory McIlroy To Nike?

Faldo should stick with what he knows best...persimmons and pointless banter.
 
Thainer21 said:
I think Nicks just jealous that he never had these opportunities, so new UK players shouldnt get this opportunity either.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous comment that! Don't think he's too bothered......you know with this 6 major wins and his wealth about £40million
 
barryjmunro said:
Ridiculous comment that! Don't think he's too bothered......you know with this 6 major wins and his wealth about £40million
Click to expand...

Out of all the "old timers" I think Faldo has a better understanding of modern golf. But I. Think he may be a little bit jealous. It isn't outside the realm of possiblities.
 
or, you know, maybe it's just his opinion because that happens to be what he thinks?

I don't believe he said that rory isn't going to perform with nike clubs, just that it's a risk because you go from playing one thing to playing something entirely different. You never quite know how that will play out
 
Who knows maybe Faldo is right. There's a thread on Camilo's poor play of late where many people point out that his play declined after signing a big Taylor Made deal. Is that due to equipment? Desire? Pressure? A lot of factors at play.
Its likely that Rory's level of play stays the same but I don't think its a "the world is flat" comment to say there is a risk.
 
barryjmunro said:
Yeah and just like £40m is not £150m, 2 major wins is not 6.
Click to expand...

Here is an honest question. Each year or at the least every 2 years, the guys change equipment anyway. Nick changed equipment all the time. What is the huge difference between a change with in a brand to a new driver, new set of irons, etc or a change to another brand?

After spending some time with some professional athletes, the equipment they are playing is so overstated as to the reason they are winning its ridiculous.
 
My father always blames his crappiness on his clubs. I always ask him, "If Tiger played a round of golf with your clubs, do you think he would shoot 115?" Always shuts him up. I only say that because I agree with you JB. I think way too much credit goes to the clubs rather than the individual. If Tiger played MacGregor irons and woods he would still win.
 
barryjmunro said:
Yeah and just like £40m is not £150m, 2 major wins is not 6.
Click to expand...

Yet.

You're forgetting Nick Faldo is a has been. His days are done. He wanted to be the greatest thing to come out of the uk and now that he won't be, he's gonna piss on Rorys parade.

Do you rory. Get money. The wins will come.




People are forgetting that PGA players know how to swing a club. That's it. They have agents and marketers and everything done for them. So nicks words are coming from a golf professional, not a business professional. These guys get way too much credit.
 
JB said:
Here is an honest question. Each year or at the least every 2 years, the guys change equipment anyway. Nick changed equipment all the time. What is the huge difference between a change with in a brand to a new driver, new set of irons, etc or a change to another brand?

After spending some time with some professional athletes, the equipment they are playing is so overstated as to the reason they are winning its ridiculous.
Click to expand...

JB i don't know the answer to this and if i did then I would probably be running my own golf company. My only point that I wanted to make was that playing golf to a major championship standard to being a journeyman is a fine line and if you had been using equipment for 7 years and it works then why change? To me that extra $100m is not worth it, why? because these guys have accumulated astronomical wealth already and that chance of not winning any more majors is not worth it. Hey as i said before maybe i'm way out of touch with modern society and would like to think its more about the golf. If he does choose to sign this deal then fantastic for him, he'll get my support and i hope he goes on to beat Tiger and Jack cause i'm sick of my old man telling me the all time great sports stars have not played during my generation.

Thainer21 said:
Yet.

You're forgetting Nick Faldo is a has been. His days are done. He wanted to be the greatest thing to come out of the uk and now that he won't be, he's gonna piss on Rorys parade.

Do you rory. Get money. The wins will come.




People are forgetting that PGA players know how to swing a club. That's it. They have agents and marketers and everything done for them. So nicks words are coming from a golf professional, not a business professional. These guys get way too much credit.
Click to expand...

Faldo a has been? he's won 6 majors mate and worth £40m, to me he was a phenomenal golfer whose retired, seems like jealousy form your end. Has he currently won more majors than Rory? Yes he has, we don't know if Rory will win any more and beat Tiger and Jack, see if he does i'll be delighted because I'm a huge fan. As i said to JB being successful in golf is a fine line and it only takes a small slip for Rory not to win anymore and be a has been as you call it, i call anyone who has made it as a pro a fantastic golfer. Do we call Seve a has been??? No course not we call him a legend and Nick Faldo has won more majors to him. On a side not I can not stand Faldo.
 
barryjmunro said:
JB i don't know the answer to this and if i did then I would probably be running my own golf company. My only point that I wanted to make was that playing golf to a major championship standard to being a journeyman is a fine line and if you had been using equipment for 7 years and it works then why change? To me that extra $100m is not worth it, why? because these guys have accumulated astronomical wealth already and that chance of not winning any more majors is not worth it.
Click to expand...

But I guess that is my point Barry. He has not been playing the same equipment for 7 years. It may be the same brand, but much of it has changed.
 
barryjmunro said:
So what is Faldo is a has been. Has he currently won more majors than Rory? Yes he has, we don't know if Rory will win any more and beat Tiger, see if he does i'll be delighted because I'm a huge fan. As i said to JB being successful in golf is a fine line and it only takes a small slip for Rory not to win anymore and be a has been as you call it, i call anyone who has made it as a pro a fantastic golfer. Do we call Seve a has been??? No course not we call him a legend and Nick Faldo has won more than him. On a side not I can not stand Faldo.
Click to expand...

We arent calling Seve a has been because Seve gave credit where credit is due. Rory is TOO GOOD not to win with any equipment Nike gives him. They will paint a titleist ball with a swoosh if they have to. Theyll build him a 913 proto if they have to. Forged blades are the same, forged wedges are the same, and if he sticks with his scotty, than oh well.


There is literally nothing for Faldo to be speaking about in this case.
 
The irony in this all is that if Tiger Woods' contract was up, and he walked away and signed with Titleist, the opinions would be very different. Nobody would be saying he is screwing up his game or why change equipment. If people knew the inner workings of R&D and who works where, opinions might be different, but companies never make that info public.

What if you found out that the people designing the clubs at Nike (not just Tom Stites) all came from Titleist a couple of years ago? Now that is obviously not the case, but the people they have in place now, have a pedigree that is some of the best in the business if you were to see resumes. Heck just the metal wood division alone has people there that were in charge of designing some of the best drivers that have come out over the last 10 years.

Its not just consumer makeup, its the way marketing is done. Nike markets differently than other companies and I believe that is one of the issues. They market golf like they do other sports and it is completely geared around celebrity and athletes and in my opinion (and only mine) it is a mistake because there is a disconnect from the consumer on some levels.
 
I agree 100% in this. Nike markets people, not gear. That is one of their huge downfalls IMO.

Thats why their apparel moves, and their gear doesnt.
 
JB said:
But I guess that is my point Barry. He has not been playing the same equipment for 7 years. It may be the same brand, but much of it has changed.
Click to expand...

That is a really simple statement that has been overlooked by so many.

Hell, I bet when some golfers switch clubs within a company (going to a newer model of driver for example), there is more difference between those clubs than there would be switching to a different companies driver.
 
JB said:
The irony in this all is that if Tiger Woods' contract was up, and he walked away and signed with Titleist, the opinions would be very different. Nobody would be saying he is screwing up his game or why change equipment. If people knew the inner workings of R&D and who works where, opinions might be different, but companies never make that info public.

What if you found out that the people designing the clubs at Nike (not just Tom Stites) all came from Titleist a couple of years ago? Now that is obviously not the case, but the people they have in place now, have a pedigree that is some of the best in the business if you were to see resumes. Heck just the metal wood division alone has people there that were in charge of designing some of the best drivers that have come out over the last 10 years.

Its not just consumer makeup, its the way marketing is done. Nike markets differently than other companies and I believe that is one of the issues. They market golf like they do other sports and it is completely geared around celebrity and athletes and in my opinion (and only mine) it is a mistake because there is a disconnect from the consumer on some levels.
Click to expand...

Very interesting post. I guess that Nike thinks their model can work in golf because it has worked in just about every other sport that they are involved with. Of course, just off the top of my head, I would think that most of those sports are more apparel-based instead of equipment-based.
 
JB said:
The irony in this all is that if Tiger Woods' contract was up, and he walked away and signed with Titleist, the opinions would be very different. Nobody would be saying he is screwing up his game or why change equipment. If people knew the inner workings of R&D and who works where, opinions might be different, but companies never make that info public.

What if you found out that the people designing the clubs at Nike (not just Tom Stites) all came from Titleist a couple of years ago? Now that is obviously not the case, but the people they have in place now, have a pedigree that is some of the best in the business if you were to see resumes. Heck just the metal wood division alone has people there that were in charge of designing some of the best drivers that have come out over the last 10 years.

Its not just consumer makeup, its the way marketing is done. Nike markets differently than other companies and I believe that is one of the issues. They market golf like they do other sports and it is completely geared around celebrity and athletes and in my opinion (and only mine) it is a mistake because there is a disconnect from the consumer on some levels.
Click to expand...

Right there, that's the fundamental premise behind whether a company (golf or not) is successful or not. If you can't create that "experience" with the consumer, then you will be treading water when it comes to sales. Not to say that Nike has failed, but they could go about it much different and, I feel, get much better results.
 
arydolphin said:
Very interesting post. I guess that Nike thinks their model can work in golf because it has worked in just about every other sport that they are involved with. Of course, just off the top of my head, I would think that most of those sports are more apparel-based instead of equipment-based.
Click to expand...

In my opinion that is the case. Most sports are soft goods related to look and "play" like your favorite team or player. Golf is as well to some degree and if you look at soft goods, Nike has done incredibly well (outside of the golf ball). However when it comes to hard goods, as their players and athletes have shined, sales have related to overall golf equipment sales, and less about Nike golf equipment sales. It is an interesting conundrum so to speak.
 
A great video from CNN:
 
Thainer21 said:
I agree 100% in this. Nike markets people, not gear. That is one of their huge downfalls IMO.

Thats why their apparel moves, and their gear doesnt.
Click to expand...


Really? I would argue Nike has some of the best, if not the best marketing campaigns in sports.

Not sure how I understand why that moves apparel and not gear. Think the gear thing has a lot to do with entering the golf equipment industry rather recently compared to a lot of other major brands.
 
Golf Ghost said:
Really? I would argue Nike has some of the best, if not the best marketing campaigns in sports.

Not sure how I understand why that moves apparel and not gear. Think the gear thing has a lot to do with entering the golf equipment industry rather recently compared to a lot of other major brands.
Click to expand...

I dont think that is what Thainer meant. I wont answer for him, but it is similar to my views. Nike markets athletes incredibly well. Makes consumers want to look and act like them and consider them role models. I dont think anybody could dispute Nike's marketing as it is very very good. It is just that golf marketing and what has worked to sell soft goods for years and years are very different.

People see a golfer and may aspire to look like them. But in golf, they still go with what the pros use and marketshare dictates it in almost every segment. Marketshare leaders, are almost identical to "counts" on the tours.
Driver - TM
FW Wood - TM
Hybrids - Adams
Irons - Titleist/TM
Wedges - Cleveland/Titleist
Putter - Odyssey
Ball - Titleist

One could even go a step further and say that marketing to "play what the pros play" is not only more efficient in hard goods, but it has worked for decades. Nike has gone with a different model and in time we will see if it pays off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top