How important is equipment for the Tour player?

Hawk

Master Painter
Albatross 2024 Club
Staff member
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
75,773
Reaction score
17,187
Location
IL
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.
 
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.

I think it's very important but I also think they are just as mental as the rest of us and after switching from something they have been comfortable with for years the first thing they are gonna blame when it goes bad is the equipment.

Edited because I contradicted myself in my own post. #win
 
On the other hand, Tommy Gainey attributed his win to his new clubs.

I suspect it may be about whether the clubs create confidence or take away from it more than anything.
 
I think it's different for all. Sometimes it's just a comfort thing. Look at David Toms when he left Cleveland and went to TM years ago. He struggled big time and when he left TM he talked about how he just never got comfortable.
 
At their level, I think equipment is important. With how long the courses are, getting setup properly to get correct optimal launch angles, etc all goes a long way. But, I also believe that sheer talent and work ethic is quite important also.

Combination of those 2 things breeds confidence and we all know how important that is.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Staff
  • #6
Yea - confience and being comfortable are definitely part of the equation, though that's a mental thing rather than an equpment thing.
 
Another really interesting question and personally I dont think it plays much of a role at all. We hear about adjustment periods and such, but truthfully, guys change gear all the time and many of them change to the latest lines from the sponsor every year or so, so gear is changing. Using some examples, G-Mac struggled after his switch, but he will be the 1st to tell you his putter was the reason for that struggle. His contract is for far less than what he uses, so he seems to have found some things he likes enough to switch. We heard about Luke Donald struggling at the beginning of this year when he made an iron switch. He finished just fine and it was a switch while in the same company.

Others that have fallen are Camilo Villegas when he switched to TaylorMade, but his fall seems to be all centered around the short game. There are so many examples of both sides, that I think it gets more attention than is needed. The difference is golf is a game where consumers can play the same courses (with in reason), the same equipment (so they tell you) and more just like the pros, so there becomes brand loyalty, much like team loyalty in team spots. Never really understood it on a personal level, but get the idea behind it.
 
Personally i think GMac made a mistake leaving Callaway but i might be bias :D
 
Interesting question. I usually find myself siding with the camp that it's the idiot attached to the club/keyboard that's the problem and not the stick. Most companies today fall within a miniscule variance when it comes to equipment specifications thanks the USGA/R&A rules and while there are differences in appearances and construction, essentially they all accomplish the same thing. I believe it was Jack Nicklaus (don't hold me to it) who said that the toughest part of golf is the 6in between your ears (or something to that effect).

While I do think any player professional or amateur will see a difference when changing clubs, it is more of a mental reaction to change in general that gives us something to talk about. And when that change happens at the highest level of the game where the difference between 1st and 125th on the list is 10 strokes average vs. your local club where the difference could be 30-50 strokes, it is easier to see the slight changes caused by the mental reaction to change.

I would be curious to see the hard numbers on those that have changed brands vs those that have stayed on-brand but went to a newer version (i.e. Sergio going to Rocketbaldez)
 
I think the only real differance is the mental side of changing. We all know that no matter what brand there playing there going to be properly fit for everything possible. Ill be most guys could be just as successful with any of the top brands. Wheather or not they have the mental ability to change is all on them.
 
I think it matters only fractionally. It takes time for a player to switch gear after playing the same driver from the same company. Once they are comfortable with it though, it does not matter.
 
Personally i think GMac made a mistake leaving Callaway but i might be bias :D

I heard they pushed him out the door to make room for another Irishman
 
Camilio is the first guy that comes to mind for someone who seemed to drop significantly after an equipment change. And guys like Faldo, Kenny Perry and some of the older set seem to emphasize caution to the younger guys in switching companies. You would think that it shouldn't make a difference to these guys, but there are certainly instances where a player's performace has dropped off after an equipment change, so that has to at least be mentioned as a possibility.

I was/kind of still am a serious runner and I always equate golf clubs with running shoes. You definitely need the right size shoe obviously but beyond that, every brand is different, even though they market or categorize their shoes the same (neutral, stability). In fact, running shoe companies churn out different models as often as every 6 months and even later models are completely different from earlier ones (anyone who runs in Asics Nimbus will be able to tell you that the model has been terrible after 7 and they should have just stopped there). So there really is a particular shoe out there that will provide optimal results for you. Sure you could run in any shoe that's in your size, but probably not achieving your potential with another brand or model not ideal for you.

At any rate, I guess my analogy follows that an equipment change shouldn't be a deal breaker for the pros, but there are certainly occasions where such a change has been a factor in preventing a few from performing as well as they could.
 
I'm not really sure to be honest. I would think that as long as it is visually similar to the clubs they were playing prior to the switch, it wouldn't have a ton of impact. Those guys are good and can find the sweet spot pretty easily I think. Now if a player was dumped by an OEM and was forced to take a club deal they didn't really want but needed the money, I think that would have some mental implications.
 
Yea - confience and being comfortable are definitely part of the equation, though that's a mental thing rather than an equpment thing.

This more the case than the actual clubs I feel. Everyone at that level are ball strikers.
 
I dont think the equipment itself is very important, more the confidence one has in it. Same could be said for so many of us though.
 
Gmac struggled too.

how much was it the equipment vs being the reigning US Open Champ? He talked openly about the latter being an issue for him on the course. I don't expect him to really talk about issues with the equipment but who knows.
 
I read a book that talked about the post-breakthrough crash a little bit. It seemed to place blame on things like pay-for-play events, appearances, etc, that lead to fatigue and a lack of focus.
 
how much was it the equipment vs being the reigning US Open Champ? He talked openly about the latter being an issue for him on the course. I don't expect him to really talk about issues with the equipment but who knows.

Because him saying he struggles changing to Cleveland gear wouldn't be good press. Either way, he won again. Interested to see if he sticks with Cleveland after his contract is up.
 
I have always believed it is the Indian not the arrow 99% of the time. Saying that, I have seen those odd situations where it does make a difference. But I do think these guys would smash your local club with any decent set of oem equipment that will handle their swing speeds.
 
I think the biggest differance in the top ten guys and the rest of the field is mental ability anyway. Winning in a sport of one takes a lot more than changing equipment.
 
I read a book that talked about the post-breakthrough crash a little bit. It seemed to place blame on things like pay-for-play events, appearances, etc, that lead to fatigue and a lack of focus.

and lets face it. At Callaway he was a guy. For Cleveland he became THE guy. I'm sure that adds some pressure too.
 
The difference between the winners and the rest of the field is usually not much. One to two shots a round can make a big difference between winning and finishing 7, 10 or more shots behind. I think that Nicklaus was right, it's the 6 inches between the ears (and good putting).

Some people may take more time to adjust than others, but if they have the right mental attitued, they'll be as good or better than they were before. I agree that there may be instances where the brand is just not a good fit for a particular player. But I also think that the clubs are so close to each other as to what they can do that changing is more easy than ever.
 
I skimmed through this so not sure if its been said, but I think most of the cases we hear about players struggling with new equipment has nothing to do with the new equipment. Most of the time, we only hear about high profile players switching gear. These guys attain their high profile by winning and winning big. Its my belief that the media circus created from winning and the pressure to keep winning has more to do with less than stellar results than any new gear.
 
Back
Top