Nike to Pull out of Golf Equipment Market

First topic message reminder :

Though deserved a thread of its own

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36971507

No clubs, balls and bags anymore but continuing to make apparel.


Some thoughts so far;

SmithersJones wrote:Excuse the golf talk but Nike have announced they're pulling out of the golf equipment business. Wonder if Rory will be playing his old Titleist clubs and more pertinently his old Scotty next time out?

GPB wrote:Nike getting out the Golf Equipment business.  Will still manufacture clothing including shoes.

sirbenson wrote:The Tiger Woods affect....Charl Schwartzel's mid season move of brand makes sense now, apparently Mcilroy was practicing last week with a Scotty Cameron putter

With Nike and Adidas leaving the golf market what does it say about the game?  

Will the Nike players be loving that they can use different equipment now?

How many majors would Tiger have won if he could have used the proV1?    :whistle:  

I doubt a Scotty will help Rory too much.


Steiny on Tiger

Steiny wrote:"Clearly he and I need to be thinking about a change on the hard goods side," Steinberg told GolfChannel.com via phone. "He and I have discussed at length the plan for that, and feel comfortable with what we're going to do going forward. But clearly, there's likely to be a change."

"He's been a longtime icon of Nike Golf and that's not going to change one ounce. He'll remain a loyal and enthusiastic icon of Nike."

Mizuno golf touting for business

‏@Golf_Mizuno wrote:@TigerWoods @McIlroyRory @BKoepka @Kevin_Chappell @JhonattanVegas @russhenleygolf @themichellewie --Team Mizuno now holding open tryouts

I'm sure there are plenty of phrases in English that I don't know about and I've lived here a lot longer than 10 years and am a native speaker

I think it's fair to say that Sergio could well been unaware of, especially that he hasn't been living in a traditional "deep south" locale.

Davie wrote:

super_realist wrote:I didn't know about Fried Chicken I have to say

Neither did I .. but Mac's argument is that Sergio has spent enough time in the USA that he SHOULD know. I'd argue that being a non English speaker, he could be equally as unaware of any potential connotations

Doesn't equate to fact though, which is always Mac's problem and pretty funny given his professed 'science' bent. Sergio's also a wealthy golfer - does he even pay attention to, or mix with, anyone who'd inform him of the connotation? Not a given.

Given how out of touch your average footballer is, it's not to much of a leap to imagine that Sergio could be similarly out of touch.

Fried chicken is an American thing. I didn't get to know about its link with the black population until the Zoeller incident. And so should Sergio by the way.

Re hoodies and the link with low social class / inner city. In the UK that may also mean white, but in an American context it only means black. And Woods being American and Nike an American brand I also don't understand why a well informed person like Mac can't / won't accept that there is an obvious link.

Pedro

There is a link that people on here have created, what I want to know is whether or not my post would classify as racist in the real world. No one seems to be able to answer that and only seem concerned with protecting the supposed gotcha moment of catching mac making a racist comment.

Lots of people have answered it Mac. You just don't like the answer so keep saying your holding out for (a different) one......
Presumably from someone you respect. Which will presumably be someone who agrees with you.
Your comment was as racist as Sergio's. In the real world, in this world, even in your make believe world.
Hence the irony.
Prediction, later you will again say that you're 'waiting for someone to tell you / prove something" that once more in your mind defers your 'guilt' a bit longer, and so on

Well, I'm quite pleased with that, got nearly 2 pages out of 1 word...

Monty

Certainly caused me a world of pain. Out of interest, and you can PM if you would prefer this not to be known, but were you actually being serious with the your post?

You brought it on yourself Mac - Monty "caused" nothing

Well, there is a link between black subculture and hoodies that I thought was pretty well known therefore it was interesting that out of all the things Nike sell you chose the one with with those connotations. (I don't really think you were being racist... )

Maybe Sergio knows that Tiger's favourite food is fried chicken, so was being a gracious host? Maybe Sergio read the Zoeller comments and thought it was a comical stereotype where it would be perfectly possible to make an innocent joke? White people eat fried chicken too.

Sergio grew up in Spain, which has a very small black population (even smaller 20 years ago) and therefore no "black culture" and no black/white racial tension. He's now a millionaire golfer and lives in a little world with little racial diversity or conflict. It's likely he had no idea what he said was offensive, just naive.

Mac is from Scotland (I can't use the phrase "grew up"), which has a very small black population and therefore minimal "black culture" or black/white racial tension. With his sheltered upbringing it's likely he had no idea what he said was offensive, just naive.

Maybe have a wander around Harlesden to understand the connection. Or look at the footage of the London riots to see (mainly) young black men in hoodies committing crimes. You don't have to be black to wear a hoodie, but it's overwhelmingly what black disaffected youths wear.

MontysMerkin wrote:Well, there is a link between black subculture and hoodies that I thought was pretty well known therefore it was interesting that out of all the things Nike sell you chose the one with with those connotations. (I don't really think you were being racist... )

Again I'll point out (and I'm no fan of Mac's generally) that he chose 2 things Nike sell, shoes and hoodies, it was you who picked on the latter exclusively and made the racial link.

SmithersJones wrote:

MontysMerkin wrote:Well, there is a link between black subculture and hoodies that I thought was pretty well known therefore it was interesting that out of all the things Nike sell you chose the one with with those connotations. (I don't really think you were being racist... )

Again I'll point out (and I'm no fan of Mac's generally) that he chose 2 things Nike sell, shoes and hoodies, it was you who picked on the latter exclusively and made the racial link.

Well, I call out overt and disgusting racial stereotyping when I see it. You may think it's ok to let these things slide but I for one will not stand idly by and allow it. That's how bloody Hitler started.

Thanks smithers :kiss:


But "I'm no fan of Mac's"   :cry:

MontysMerkin wrote:

SmithersJones wrote:

MontysMerkin wrote:Well, there is a link between black subculture and hoodies that I thought was pretty well known therefore it was interesting that out of all the things Nike sell you chose the one with with those connotations. (I don't really think you were being racist... )

Again I'll point out (and I'm no fan of Mac's generally) that he chose 2 things Nike sell, shoes and hoodies, it was you who picked on the latter exclusively and made the racial link.

Well, I call out overt and disgusting racial stereotyping when I see it. You may think it's ok to let these things slide but I for one will not stand idly by and allow it. That's how bloody Hitler started.

Monty's Mac

McLaren wrote:In case anyone has come late to the conversation, here is the post that Navy and Davie are convinced is racist.

McLaren wrote:Do nike sign people like Tiger and Rory to gain from the golf market or are they like Federer, Lance (before his issues), Serena who are signed to add to the overall image of superiority these athletes give nike.  So the brand as a whole is associated with the best players without needing to benefit from the market of a particular sport.  Tiger probably sold more shoes and hoodies than he did golf clubs or balls.

Nice try guys.

I don't think there is any deliberate racially implied stereotyping there Mac, you're in the clear. Equally I would say the same about Sergio's Fried chicken comment. Which way would you like to have it? Innocent and an apology for numerous posts calling Sergio a racist. Or guilty, be known as a closet racist and the continued justification to call Sergio a racist...your call ;-)

I don't think that Macs racism should be let go that easily
In fact I may call the 'pigs' and make a complaint and hope they don't bring the tasers with em..

Jas Isn't that the ad hominem fallacy? My character is questioned as a way to determine if an unrelated premise is true?

Whether I have made a racist comment or not has no bearing on whether Sergio's completely different comment is racist.

So I guess my call would be that you determine independently if either comment was racist?

Which you answered above "I don't think there is any deliberate racially implied stereotyping there Mac, you're in the clear. Equally I would say the same about Sergio's Fried chicken comment".

So we just disagree on Sergio, whose comment has been categorized as racist by many people who are well placed to decide.

Mac, Whether someone perceives something as being racist has no bearing on the intention of the statement.

I'm sure you've used the term "nitty gritty" before without realising some people might take offence to it due to its connections to the slave trade, doesn't mean you used it to mean how some people might take it. Your usage could be perfectly innocent, just as Sergio's use "may" have been.

However, not sure why 9C would take offence to the term "fried chicken" seeing as he's the whitest "black" man you'd ever see. You couldn't be less "black" than Woods.

super_realist wrote: seeing as he's the whitest "black" man you'd ever see. You couldn't be less "black" than Woods.

Just when I think it's peaked you manage to make the stupidest comment I've ever read on the internet, and that takes some doing. Talk about parochial, small minded, mouth breather, have you ever even left your village or are they all idiots?

I mean his attitude Monty. Woods is just exactly the same as all the other middle class, white, Republican voting pro's on the tour. No style, no personality.

Compare Woods to other prominent black sportsmen e.g Bolt and there couldn't be a clearer difference.

What about all the middle class, black, republican voting people he's like? He's just as 'black' as they are.

McLaren wrote:Jas Isn't that the ad hominem fallacy?  My character is questioned as a way to determine if an unrelated premise is true?  

Whether I have made a racist comment or not has no bearing on whether Sergio's completely different comment is racist.

So I guess my call would be that you determine independently if either comment was racist?

Which you answered above "I don't think there is any deliberate racially implied stereotyping there Mac, you're in the clear. Equally I would say the same about Sergio's Fried chicken comment".

So we just disagree on Sergio, whose comment has been categorized as racist by many people who are well placed to decide.

No you buffoon, JAS isn't using your comments to determine whether Sergio is a racist. He is referring to your attitude, and your clear double standards. Either admit you made a racist comment, or admit Sergio isn't racist.

"Either admit you made a racist comment, or admit Sergio isn't racist."

Again, what has my comment got to do with whether or not sergio made a racist comment?

My level of racism has nothing to do with sergio's level of racism.

Many of you are clambering to link them in some way because you wish it were true that there wasn't a clear case of pea brain being racist, and now you think that setting up some incoherent premise that either both me and sergio are racist or both of us are not racist makes sense.

It's because the same logic applies to both comments Mac.
Ergo if one is racist the other must be too and vice versa.

But then, we all know you know that

The same logic does not apply as has been pointed out many times.  

If using "shoes and hoodies" as examples of what nike products Tiger helped to sell is racist I think we have all accepted I would have been unaware of such connotations. (But I stress the claim that this is racist is currently lacking evidence).  At best the Mac haters will be left with the fact I unintentionally used a discriminatory phrase.

As has been pointed out many times there is no way sergio could have been unaware of the usage of "fried chicken" as a racist slur.  Given that he would know about the Fuzzy comment and had lived int he US for many years by the time he made the comment.  So here we have a clear difference in that Sergio was intentionally racist by using a phrase which he had clear knowledge of its meaning.

Pointed out by you and only you.
No one else agrees. Whilst there are those who have said they don't think you meant your comment to be racist they, almost universally, also say that they also think, and/or you should accept, that Sergio's comments may not have been racist.
Because the scenarios are almost identical, and the same logic applies to both.

As you would say, this is pretty simple stuff.

Do you not find it ironic that you're coming out with all these excuses about the tenuous link between black people and hoodies or that you didn't mean it, but at the same time hold the stance that you refuse to accept that Sergio was unaware or didn't mean it.

Do you really not see the irony there???

I knew that hoodies could be associated with black culture but I was unaware of the fried chicken thing. I'd also never heard Zoeller's comment before. Why is so believeable to that you could be unaware and there it's 'clear' you didn't mean it, but it's so unbelievable Sergio was unaware and there fore must have meant it?
I honestly don't follow. Why are your excuses so believable and his aren't?

McLaren wrote:The same logic does not apply as has been pointed out many times.  

If using "shoes and hoodies" as examples of what nike products Tiger helped to sell is racist I think we have all accepted I would have been unaware of such connotations. (But I stress the claim that this is racist is currently lacking evidence).  At best the Mac haters will be left with the fact I unintentionally used a discriminatory phrase.

As has been pointed out many times there is no way sergio could have been unaware of the usage of "fried chicken" as a racist slur.  Given that he would know about the Fuzzy comment and had lived int he US for many years by the time he made the comment.  So here we have a clear difference in that Sergio was intentionally racist by using a phrase which he had clear knowledge of its meaning.

Of course he could have been unaware. Why do you think he would have to know that? Have you known all your days it was a slur? Are you aware of everything which can be construed as racist? Are you aware that some people will take things differently from how they were intended? What makes you think he would know about a long retired golfer making the quote? I didn't. Living somewhere doesn't mean you know everything about the country you live in. Think about all the Brits who live in Spain, do they know all the customs, and do they know what is offensive or not? No, of course not.
Think about all the immigrants in the UK who haven't assimilated and who might be unaware of "offensive" things they do and say.

You have no justification for claiming that Sergio was intentionally racist.
What about US golfers who spit all the time, if you say that Sergio was intentionally racist, then you have to claim that these guys know that spitting is frowned upon in the UK, but you seem to let them off with doing it not realising it is considered revolting here.

I know there's a great deal of Mac baiting going on here, but perhaps someone might explain the reason they think Sergio mentioned fried chicken in the context he did if he didn't know it was a racial slur?

SmithersJones wrote:I know there's a great deal of Mac baiting going on here, but perhaps someone might explain the reason they think Sergio mentioned fried chicken in the context he did if he didn't know it was a racial slur?

Good Point.

Why would Sergio suggest Fried Chicken. He could have picked a dozen casual American dishes like Hamburgers or Hot Dogs But he chose Fried Chicken.

The same reason Mac chose hoodies?
He could have chosen tshirts, trousers, towels.....

It was in the afternath if the Zoeller incident and he was trying to be funny.

pedro wrote:It was in the afternath if the Zoeller incident and he was trying to be funny.

The Sergio Fried Chicken Incident?

Only if the aftermath lasted 16 years.

Sergio's "Fried Chicken" comment was at May 2013
Fuzzy's was at April, 1997

“Why can't we all just get along?”

Signed,
Rodney King

According to this article, PXG is courting Rory, but not Tiger

http://www.cbssports.com/golf/news/golf-equipment-company-is-interested-in-rory-mcilroy-but-not-tiger-woods/

SmithersJones wrote:I know there's a great deal of Mac baiting going on here, but perhaps someone might explain the reason they think Sergio mentioned fried chicken in the context he did if he didn't know it was a racial slur?

Why? Have you ever been to the US? There are fried chicken outlets absolutely everywhere you go. Of course there are also burger and pizza outlets, but neither represent America the same way as "fried chicken".

If he knew it was racist, the question is why on earth would he use it?

GPB wrote:

pedro wrote:It was in the afternath if the Zoeller incident and he was trying to be funny.

The Sergio Fried Chicken Incident?

Only if the aftermath lasted 16 years.

Sergio's "Fried Chicken" comment was at May 2013
Fuzzy's was at April, 1997

Fair enough, but I recalled the Zoeller incident still to be pretty much alive and it seemed to resurface from time to time.
So my point is still that Sergio must have known about that incident and was trying to be funny.

How can a bloke with the name of Fuzzy take the urine out of anyone? He sounds like a right Kumquat.

Why would Sergio have heard of the incident? He would have been very young at the time, and simply being a golfer doesn't mean you are privy to everything every other golfer has ever said.

MustPuttBetter wrote:The same reason Mac chose hoodies?
He could have chosen tshirts, trousers, towels.....

And he did choose shoes as well as hoodies. Sergio on the other hand mentioned only fried chicken.

SmithersJones wrote:

MustPuttBetter wrote:The same reason Mac chose hoodies?
He could have chosen tshirts, trousers, towels.....

And he did choose shoes as well as hoodies. Sergio on the other hand mentioned only fried chicken.

Well that makes all the difference then?
I assume if Sergio has said 'we'll serve fried chicken and chips', there would have been no issue......

SmithersJones wrote:

MustPuttBetter wrote:The same reason Mac chose hoodies?
He could have chosen tshirts, trousers, towels.....

And he did choose shoes as well as hoodies. Sergio on the other hand mentioned only fried chicken.

Yes I noted that also - picking up the well known meme of black hip hop stars collecting huge numbers of pairs of trainers. Disgusting to read on this family orientated and reasonable forum.

mustputt

My frustration with you in this conversation lies with your insistence that my comment and sergio's are linked in a way that means what is true for one is true for the other.  Your argument seems to be if I accidentally made a racist comment than Sergio must also have made an accidental racist comment.

I don't understand why you wouldn't evaluate what happened in each case independently, without inserting the premise that both my own and Sergio's comments have some sort of dependence on each other.


As far as I an tell your argument boils down to the following:

(1) If Mac's comment (Tiger sell shoes and hoodies...... ) was accidentally racist (or lacking racist intent), Then Mac AND sergio's (fried chicken remark) must both be an accident


(2)Mac's comment was/wasn't an accident

Conclusion: Therefore sergios comment was/wasn't racist.

I just don't accept this to be the case.  What is to stop us plugging Trumps comments about mexicans into this?  If my comment was an accident was Trump's comments about mexicans ok?



PS: I get why you are fighting so hard over this because you hope that somehow this line of reasoning will mean that posters like myself, shotrock and monty won't be able to say that sergio made a racist comment, which as far as I can tell really annoys the big RC european fans on here. This is like your get out clause to save sergio.

Mac, I have evaluated each case independently. My honest view is that your comment was in no way racist and that Sergio's may or may not have been, I don't know enough about him to tell.

The only link between your comment and Sergio's comment is that they are so similar the same logic applies to both.

But the point of it all is in respect of the irony of your double standards, to excuse yourself and yet condemn Sergio.
Plus a nice opportunity to wind you up.

Forget about it Mac, it was fun while it lasted

Sergio may be a racist as shown by his fried chicken comment, ergo you may be a racist with your black men and hoodies comment.

Note the word may. I don't know either of you so I cannot say you are or are not a racist, but what you have said could be construed as racist - as you did with Sergio.

I think it's time for an apology - something along the lines of 'if you were offended etc, etc, certainly not my intention etc etc."

No one is trying to "save" Sergio, but you are making a positive claim that Sergio must have known it was a racist slur, and that he must know about the turn of phrase because he lives in America and that he must have known about the Zoeller statement. You can't back any of that up, so you can't catergorically claim it was made with racist intent, because all you have is supposition. What you are doing is the equivalent of "faith", the belief without evidence, which makes you no better than the 400m runner we were slagging off earlier.

It may have been racist, and it may of not been, but you can't prove any of your claims, so the only stance you can take is "you don't know if it was racist". Evidence 101 Mac, and you've failed.

super_realist wrote: What you are doing is the equivalent of "faith", the belief without evidence, which makes you no better than the 400m runner we were slagging off earlier.

Super

I have evidence, whether or not you think it is good evidence is another matter.

My evidence is that it is a well known racial slur in the USA and that the Fuzzy incident was well publicized at the time and had been talked about many times within the golf media since.

Really this comes down to did the person (Sergio) using a certain phrase know about the racist usage of the words they were using.

What sort of evidence do you usually use in deciding this other than how well the racist usage is known and is there any reason to suspect intent to cause harm by the person making the comment?

I will be interested to hear what evidence you usually use when deciding the meaning people intended in the words they use.

McLaren wrote:Super

I have evidence, whether or not you think it is good evidence is another matter.

My evidence is that it is a well known racial slur in the USA and that the Fuzzy incident was well publicized at the time and had been talked about many times within the golf media since.  

Really this comes down to did the person (Sergio) using a certain phrase know about the racist usage of the words they were using.

What sort of evidence do you usually use in deciding this other than how well the racist usage is known and is there any reason to suspect intent to cause harm by the person making the comment?

I will be interested to hear what evidence you usually use when deciding the meaning people intended in the words they use.

You don't have evidence, you have supposition. Evidence is demonstrable and testable. You have nothing like that.
Who cares if it's well known. Doesn't mean a detached immigrant like Sergio would, or should know about it, In addition, he wouldn't necessarily know about Zoeller's comments as it took place in the 90's when Garcia didn't live in America and was a very young golfer. Why should he know about that? Do you know about what your colleagues might have said in 1996?

There are lots of phrases with racial connotations in the English language, but I bet you don't know all of them and it's likely that you have used them without knowing or intending to be racist. In the absence of evidence you HAVE to give Sergio the benefit of the doubt because you cannot say for certain whether he A) knew it was racist or B) used it with intent.

It may be a fact that it's a well known racial slur, but you haven't demonstrate why Sergio would know about it, nor have you demonstrated why Garcia would know about the Zoeller incident. Being a professional golfer is not a reason.

It's fine you don't like Garcia, but if you are basing it on the fact you think he is a racist, then it just goes to show that you don't understand the nature of evidence.