From: "James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: golf shoes
Organization: Semper Excelsior
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:00:15 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>DATE:   Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:00:26 GMT
>FROM:   Daniel M Racicot <dmr@apmaths.uwo.ca>
>
>I have a few questions about shoes. I'm a beginner but would like to get 
>some for Xmas but don't have a clue what to look for.  
>
>I'm a pretty bad player (110-115) so is it even worth getting them?
>What are the good brands? I really want something waterproof.
>
>Any help would be appreciated.
>Dan
>dmr@apmaths.uwo.ca

I have found only 3 brands of acceptable shoes - Footjoy, Etonic, and 
Dexter.  
Footjoy isn't what it once was, having moved their manufacturing to the 
Far East -- the shoes are far flimsier than they were in the '60s (what 
isn't?). Footjoy has more than one "last", which is the form over which 
the shoes are built.  One is for short wide feet, another for long thin 
feet, high/low arch, etc.  Seems there are at least 3 or 4 lasts for 
men, REX and STANTON (STRATTON?) or whatever, and they are listed in the 
Footjoy catalogue as part of the shoe specs.  I've given up trying 
different shoes, and always buy footjoy.  I think the Dry-Joys are the 
best g-shoes I have ever had, and I'm on my second pair.  Just love 'em.
Try on some footjoys and see how the fit compares with the last used.  I 
know that the REX fits me (you should be in my shoes 8^) ) and so I 
always buy a REX style.  If you want to get fancy, Footjoy can oblige 
with shoes costing hundreds of $s a pair.  The lizardskins are close to 
a $1000 I think ($895 ?).  I think Footjoys look the best, too, but
Degustibus non disputandem, as they always say.  They are the Titleist 
of golf shoes, i.e. more pros play/wear/hit/etc.

Etonic makes a very fine shoe, but they just don't fit my foot. I think 
they're little more expensive for an equivalent shoe, but couldn't swear 
to it.

Dexter makes a good shoe.  I wear Dexters a lot because I can buy seconds
at a local factory outlet for peanuts.  They fit almost as good as the 
Footjoys and are serviceable in every respect.  They are somewhat 
cheaper than FJs even at retail.

Nikes, Reebock, and so forth are all new territory for me.  I tried one 
of the track-shoe styles a few years ago -- HATED THEM.  Bass sucks.  
Florsheim sucks.  Just IMHO.

I look for firm support, hence leather (fake is ok) uppers.  Some golf 
shoes have a thick sole that will destroy your footwork -- you are 
too far off the ground -- avoid them.  Hushpuppies come to mind - 
terrible.  Be sure the shoes are waterproof -- you won't be sorry.

Do you need golf shoes?  Absolutely, positively, without a doubt, yes 
you do.  Even if they don't help your game, they could save you a broken 
leg the next time you try hitting off a sidehill lie in the rain.  
Simply walking the course becomes easier -- no sliding up or downhill --
good golf shoes are made for walking.  There is also a stigma attached 
to golfers who don't wear golf shoes, just for a cultural motivation.  
As for your 110-115, I think a good pair of shoes could actually trim a 
few shots off that, since a just a few slips could account for quite a 
few shots during the course of a round.  A firm foundation encourages 
good balance, and the spikes allow an easier transfer of weight without 
the feet "squirming" during the swing.  As for the non-spike styles, 
they're ok for dry courses, but I still don't like them because they 
seem to tear up the greens worse than spikes.  This could just be my 
imagination, however.  They are not nearly as stable as spikes, either.
  ,...,.,,
 /666;    ',    jim tims
////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
(/@/----0-~-0
 ;'  . `` ~ \'
  , `    ' , >
;;|\..((   -C---->> 110-115?  Sounds like the old rock-and-block.
;;| >-  `.__),;;    Gotta finish with the weight on the left.


Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf