From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: golf shoes
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:50:35 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:36:07 GMT
>FROM:   Gregory Faulkner <skulldoc@carson.u.washington.edu>
>
>"James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:
>>
>>>DATE:   Mon, 21 Dec 92 15:27:49 GMT
>>>FROM:   John Vander Borght <john@sequent.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>The USGA did a study and has recommende spikeless shoes as being better for
>>>the greens.  My club has asked us to wear them.  The ones they recommend
>>>are made by Footjoy and the soles look a lot like my Rockports with a
>>>little larger ridges going across them.  We have an 18 hole putting course
>>>where they don't allow spikes at all.
>
>>Glad to hear this.  Like I said, it was probably my imagination because 
>>it didn't seem logical.  I think my opinion was formed watching some 
>>pretty clumsy-footed people doing a number around the hole, twisting their
>>feet, etc.  Come to think of it, they'd have really dug a crater with 
>>spikes!  My comments on spikeless should not have even been made at all 
>>because I've never worn a pair. I was just passing on comments from 
>>those who have.
>
>Interesting, but from what I remember of the whole spiked vs. spikeless debate 
>of several years ago, the opposite conclusion was arrived at - that is, that
>spikeless shoes do more damage than spiked.  The reasoning was that instead
>of poking little holes in the turf, aerating it, like spiked shoes do, the 
>spikeless beasts simply compacted whatever was underneath, damaging the turf,
>especially the greens.  In my own experience, spikeless shoes, while more
>comfortable to walk in, did a lot of damage to greens, especially damp ones.  
>They would create big footprint craters all over the place.  And it's my 
>understanding that many courses prohibit the use of spikeless shoes, rather 
>than advocating them.

THAT WAS IT!  It was the FOOTPRINTS that I noticed.  Thanks, Gregory.  I 
knew I had to have some reason for thinking spikeless shoes tear up the 
greens, just couldn't remember what it was.  Wasn't my imagination after 
all, just a poor memory.  Spikes concentrate a lot of the weight to
the tips of the spikes.  Without them, the entire footprint bears the 
weight, so instead of the spike holes you get big grooves and 
depressions all over the green which are infuriating to putt over.  
Anybody even suggesting spike marks are worse than those grooves can't
know how to putt.  People wearing tennis shoes do the same thing to the
greens, as you noted.

As a statistical collection, IMO, those who wear golf shoes care more about 
maintaining the condition of the course than those who don't.  

>
>Aside from that, I find that spiked shoes are much more effective than 
>spikeless, and I've tried them both.  I just didn't get the traction I
>wanted from spikeless (or from tennis shoes.)  Besides, IMHO, if spikeless
>shoes were a great revolution in the game, why don't the pros use 'em?
>

  ,...,.,,
 /666;    ',    jim tims
////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
(/@/----0-~-0
 ;'  . `` ~ \'
  , `    ' , >
;;|\..((   -C---->>  BTW, is there a rec.sport.golf FAQ?
;;| >-  `.__),;;

Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf