- Staff
- #1
This question comes from comments that come up time to time, most recently in the Rory to Nike thread.
How much do you think equipment brand plays a part in the success of a Tour pro? We have seen a number of guys move to new companies after finding success, only to see that success wither away. Was the new equipment really the cause of their decline or do you think other factors like distractions, pressure to perform, fatigue, etc were the reason? How much does brand bias play into the opinions we have on the subject?
We hear often that it's the indian rather than the arrow and a Tour pro could shoot a great score with the clubs we are blaming for our bad scores, but then we hear that somebody like Gmac couldn't win after chaging sponsorts because of the equipment. Just an interesting double standard that I find curious.
How much do you think equipment brand plays a part in the success of a Tour pro? We have seen a number of guys move to new companies after finding success, only to see that success wither away. Was the new equipment really the cause of their decline or do you think other factors like distractions, pressure to perform, fatigue, etc were the reason? How much does brand bias play into the opinions we have on the subject?
We hear often that it's the indian rather than the arrow and a Tour pro could shoot a great score with the clubs we are blaming for our bad scores, but then we hear that somebody like Gmac couldn't win after chaging sponsorts because of the equipment. Just an interesting double standard that I find curious.