I tried to settle a long-running internet debate a couple of years ago by counting all the metal vs. softspikes at a tour event (Buick Open @ Warwick Hills).
I have forgotten my totals now, but my presumptions were all stomped on, like Phil Mickelson surveying a putt at ANGC.
I had predicted that fully 40% of the field wore metal spikes. I was wrong. Of the entire (post-cut) weekend field, there were only about ten metal-spike wearers. Elkington, and Tiger, were both in the field, and both wore metal.
My theory on why the tour players have transitioned over was always that so many of them have shoe contracts with modern-style shoemakers, and they are directed to wear the newest retail styles, and that in anything other than heavy, leather-soled FJ Classic Premieres, metal spikes were just not comfortable. I am not at all sure that theory, which sounds good, is even true. A lot of players have Titleist ball/glove/shoe deals, and only a few of them wear metal. And I wonder how many Nike shoe wearers have metal, like Tiger. Not many. So that theory is unproven at best.
I don't understand it myself. If I were allowed to wear metal, I would. In a New York freakin' minute.
On a lighter note, recall Lee Trevino's idea; allow players who wear softspikes to tamp down spike marks. Metal-cleat wearers may not.