Jump to content
GolfSpy MPR

Tiger's Nike ball was a Bridgestone

Recommended Posts

Confirmed by the man himself:

Someone with serious video editing skills should put a Bridgestone logo on the iconic "ball hangs on the edge of the cup, then drops" moment from Augusta :-)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contracting happens all the time, no big deal. Everyone is acting like Nike had NOTHING to do with the ball. It was made in a bridgestone plant is all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this is one area of golf I do not like.  The pros play different clubs/balls then the rest of us.  Why because production is king.  It is misleading to the consumer to have company A pay company B to put a logo on something.  Yes that is business and that is fine, but its misleading to us as the customer and we can change that.  This is the same for the price of golf clubs.  Why pay $650 for a driver?  Don't and when they don't sell the price will come down. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know more. We all know Bridgestone was producing golf balls for Nike which really isn't a huge deal. But is that what Tiger meant? Or, was he legitimately playing a Bridgestone ball with Nike graphics? If so, which model? He didn't say in the video so it could still go either way. If he was simply playing a Nike ball made by Bridgestone, who really cares. If he was playing a Bridgestone ball with Nike printed on it then that's a whole different story! 

I have to agree with @jacustomgolf on this one. I understand this part of golf, but I don't like it. I'd at least feel a little better about companies charging $500+ for drivers if they were actually the same as what the pros have, but it's not even close!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

I want to know more. We all know Bridgestone was producing golf balls for Nike which really isn't a huge deal. But is that what Tiger meant? Or, was he legitimately playing a Bridgestone ball with Nike graphics? If so, which model? He didn't say in the video so it could still go either way. If he was simply playing a Nike ball made by Bridgestone, who really cares. If he was playing a Bridgestone ball with Nike printed on it then that's a whole different story! 

I have to agree with @jacustomgolf on this one. I understand this part of golf, but I don't like it. I'd at least feel a little better about companies charging $500+ for drivers if they were actually the same as what the pros have, but it's not even close!

Its not even close, and we the consumer continue to pay for clubs that still might be way off.  Time to change that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jacustomgolf said:

To me this is one area of golf I do not like.  The pros play different clubs/balls then the rest of us.  Why because production is king.  It is misleading to the consumer to have company A pay company B to put a logo on something.  Yes that is business and that is fine, but its misleading to us as the customer and we can change that.  This is the same for the price of golf clubs.  Why pay $650 for a driver?  Don't and when they don't sell the price will come down. 

While they tend to have different models or tweaks to gear that we done have they are ususllly playing what we have with tighter tolerances.  The logo thing happens all the time

1 hour ago, TR1PTIK said:

I want to know more. We all know Bridgestone was producing golf balls for Nike which really isn't a huge deal. But is that what Tiger meant? Or, was he legitimately playing a Bridgestone ball with Nike graphics? If so, which model? He didn't say in the video so it could still go either way. If he was simply playing a Nike ball made by Bridgestone, who really cares. If he was playing a Bridgestone ball with Nike printed on it then that's a whole different story! 

I have to agree with @jacustomgolf on this one. I understand this part of golf, but I don't like it. I'd at least feel a little better about companies charging $500+ for drivers if they were actually the same as what the pros have, but it's not even close!

He was playing a Nike ball made by Bridgestone and the ones sold in store were also Nike balls made by Bridgestone. He wasn’t saying he was actually playing a Bridgestone ball.

many balls as with clubs come out of the same factories overseas

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought he said that it was B330S, but I’m not sure if that was the Nike ball or not. The real question is “How often does this happen?” I know that many Titleist guys are playing prior generation PRO Vs, but if this were the case, why didn’t more pros (IE Rory coming to Nike) do the same thing?


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny to me that Nike isn't in the business any longer and people are still trying to prove that "they don't belong".

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rtracymog said:

I thought he said that it was B330S, but I’m not sure if that was the Nike ball or not. The real question is “How often does this happen?” I know that many Titleist guys are playing prior generation PRO Vs, but if this were the case, why didn’t more pros (IE Rory coming to Nike) do the same thing?


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

If I remember correctly the B330S is what he played when he signed with Bridgestone. Whether or not he played it at any time before then is anyone's guess apparently lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Rtracymog said:

I thought he said that it was B330S, but I’m not sure if that was the Nike ball or not. The real question is “How often does this happen?” I know that many Titleist guys are playing prior generation PRO Vs, but if this were the case, why didn’t more pros (IE Rory coming to Nike) do the same thing?


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

That’s the version of Bridgestone ball that had Nike stamp on it. 

The nike balls were Nike balls made by Bridgestone. The guy that came onboard to design the Nike ball is now at Callaway iirc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sparked a more intense discussion than I anticipated. I think it might be worth breaking down the phenomenon under discussion more specifically.

(Disclaimer: this should be a chart, but I'm writing this on my phone in a Burger King, so you get words instead.)

In any of these scenarios, we have three possible parties: the company that is branding a product, a competing brand, and a third-party, generic manufacturing facility.

The least egregious version of this relationship happens when two competing brands happen to use the same manufacturing plant to make differing products. I expect that we all understand and even expect this.

The most egregious version is when one brand puts its logo on the product of a competing brand, giving the impression that a Tour player is using their product when he is actually using a competitor.

That latter category seems quite close to deceptive advertising. When a player is featured by a brand as endorsing their product for play at the highest level, while they're not using it themselves, that seems (at least to me) like a problem.

I don't know (and I have no connections) what specifically Tiger meant here. The least objectionable version is this: Tiger was playing a ball designed by Nike, essentially the same as that commercially available from Nike, but manufactured for Nike in a Bridgestone plant. I see no issues there at all.

If, however, Tiger was playing a Bridgestone designed and sold ball with a swoosh painted on it, that rubs me wrong.

And I have no opinion on Nike as a golf company. I've used a couple of their clubs with no problem. Put it this way: I'd be stunned if this were any kind of Nike specific problem.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

He was playing a Nike ball made by Bridgestone and the ones sold in store were also Nike balls made by Bridgestone. He wasn’t saying he was actually playing a Bridgestone ball.

IMO if this was the case it is a non-story. If he was playing a Bridgestone ball with a swoosh on it and golfers were buying that ball, it is fine. Now if he was playing a ball different than what was marketed (except for the already mentioned tolerance levels) then this is a HUGE issue. We will probably never get the answer to this question but to me, the whole story depends on the answer to this question. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how shocked most here would be to learn that their beloved store brand products (specifically Costco's Kirkland brand) are made by other companies (and most times the companies the store brands are directly competing with).  

Heck, does the average consumer know that an Apple iphone is mostly comprised of parts made by Samsung? Probably not.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, THEZIPR23 said:

IMO if this was the case it is a non-story. If he was playing a Bridgestone ball with a swoosh on it and golfers were buying that ball, it is fine. Now if he was playing a ball different than what was marketed (except for the already mentioned tolerance levels) then this is a HUGE issue. We will probably never get the answer to this question but to me, the whole story depends on the answer to this question. 

I agree that this is a non story (especially since most of the golf community knew that Bridgestone was making balls for Nike.

Heck, even the Bridgestone ball that Tiger plays new is specially made for him - it's not some off the shelf model.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

This sparked a more intense discussion than I anticipated. I think it might be worth breaking down the phenomenon under discussion more specifically.
(Disclaimer: this should be a chart, but I'm writing this on my phone in a Burger King, so you get words instead.)
In any of these scenarios, we have three possible parties: the company that is branding a product, a competing brand, and a third-party, generic manufacturing facility.
The least egregious version of this relationship happens when two competing brands happen to use the same manufacturing plant to make differing products. I expect that we all understand and even expect this.
The most egregious version is when one brand puts its logo on the product of a competing brand, giving the impression that a Tour player is using their product when he is actually using a competitor.
That latter category seems quite close to deceptive advertising. When a player is featured by a brand as endorsing their product for play at the highest level, while they're not using it themselves, that seems (at least to me) like a problem.
I don't know (and I have no connections) what specifically Tiger meant here. The least objectionable version is this: Tiger was playing a ball designed by Nike, essentially the same as that commercially available from Nike, but manufactured for Nike in a Bridgestone plant. I see no issues there at all.
If, however, Tiger was playing a Bridgestone designed and sold ball with a swoosh painted on it, that rubs me wrong.
And I have no opinion on Nike as a golf company. I've used a couple of their clubs with no problem. Put it this way: I'd be stunned if this were any kind of Nike specific problem.

The understanding I have is when tiger switched to all Nike that Nike wasn’t in the ball business per se so Bridgestone was making the ball for Nike which would be a Bridgestone ball and different logo.  Then Nike developed their own ball and it was still a Bridgestone manufactured ball...just like with the other ball brands many pros play a variation of th ball that isn’t available at retail which imo isn’t really any different than the prototype clubs they play or the heads that come out with tighter manufacturing tolerances. So even if the Nike ball wasn’t the same version that was at retail and was more inline with the Bridgestone version it’s not really being deceptive.

what is probably mire deceptive is playing a miura iron with a titleist or Nike logo on it.

Pros have access to tour vans that are going to tweak equipment in ways that most amateurs don’t have access to or don’t want to pay from club builders.  Their heads aren’t made any different than what’s at retail they just have tighter build specs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a clever marketing move for Bridgestone to penetrate a super competitive ball market.

“By the way, Tiger was using our gear when he was in his prime.”

Nike made their money, it’s time Bridgestone made theirs.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, bens197 said:

This is a clever marketing move for Bridgestone to penetrate a super competitive ball market.

“By the way, Tiger was using our gear when he was in his prime.”

Nike made their money, it’s time Bridgestone made theirs.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

The interesting part is Bridgestone had no comment on the rumors so seeing it now that he’s with them is cool

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasnt this been pretty common knowledge for a number of years now?  We all know that especially in the early days, neither his clubs nor his balls were made by Nike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heck, even the Bridgestone ball that Tiger plays new is specially made for him - it's not some off the shelf model.
I agree that this is a non story (especially since most of the golf community knew that Bridgestone was making balls for Nike.
Heck, even the Bridgestone ball that Tiger plays new is specially made for him - it's not some off the shelf model.


This is my point. Why do we as the customer pay $650 for drivers or pay $55 for golf balls when the pros all play something other than what is sold at the golf course? I love some of the older Pro V1s but each year I have to buy what is new.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jacustomgolf said:

This is my point. Why do we as the customer pay $650 for drivers or pay $55 for golf balls when the pros all play something other than what is sold at the golf course? I love some of the older Pro V1s but each year I have to buy what is new.

 

Josh,

It's absolutely a fair point you're making. And I'd add this (that is a pretty uncontroversial opinion on this forum): even if you could buy exactly the club or ball that Rory or whoever is playing, that doesn't mean that it would have any value for your own game.

But let me suggest a counterpoint. Car manufacturers spend a lot of money on professional auto racing. And yet we all recognize that there is almost nothing whatsoever "stock" about NASCAR. Nonetheless, winning at the highest level of racing (I'm thinking here of brands like Mercedes and Ferrari) help fortify the impression that these brands are capable of producing top-notch machines.

I think something similar is not unreasonable with golf brands. Sure, I don't for a moment think I'm pulling Cameron Champ's PING driver off the shelf. But the fact that PING has engineered a club capable of doing that in his hands gives me some measure of confidence that their consumer products are well-designed.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...