Question:
In article Here I say again what I believe: golfers should play what they like. Furthermore, I am add these: if you don’t like my opinions, no problem. If peole with dissenting opinions want to talk about, no problem. Just don’t start making personal attacks. . Franklin
Good on you, Franklin!! You are entitled to your opinions WITHOUT personal attacks. — Leo
Response:
DTutelman (that’s me) writes: The QUALITY DIFFERENCE is not in durability in most cases; it’s in meeting specs reliably. I have experience comparing clones with reputable component clubs (noisemakers like FRoh don’t seem to recognize the difference, but that’s their problem), and: 1. why even mention it that it’s my problem? Because it is, and I wish it to remain your problem and not become others’ problem. As I said a month ago on a similar thread, I’m not going to try to convince you of anything, because you repeatedly demonstrate that you’re beyond convincing. I don’t care what you believe.
Then why the monumentously long posts? I wanted to make the point that it doesn’t matter what you play with as long as you like what you play with. Whenver I read a post from you, it feels like you have this thing against pro-line clubs and people who play with them. People who play pro-line clubs are wasting their money because they can get just a good clubs from a component clubmaker? Do you not care about my opinion that anyone can play any clubs they desire? Do you not care about my opinion that I like Callaways because I’ve been improving my game with them for the last three years? That’ fine, I have no problem with that. But when you spout misinformation in answer to an honestly asked question, you make your misbeliefs the problem of people who believe you. I feel it is perfectly right for me to point this out when it occurs.
So I am at fault fo telling people to try out clubs and play the ones that fit their game? If I am at fault for something, it should be for speaking against people who think all pro-line companies like Ping, Callaway and TM don’t care about quality and service. I speak from personal experience, not hear say. Again, you’re speaking from a point of no information whatsoever, just strongly held opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion.
Thank you, I repect that. In the USA, and on the Internet, you’re entitled to speak your opinion. But I’m equally entitled to point out that you’re wrong. (BTW, that’s true whether or not you’re wrong. Freedom of speech means it’s left to the reader whom to believe.)
And I repect your opinions too. You clearly don’t know what’s involved in either club design (which you’ve admitted several times), nor in the clone lawsuits (which you’ve admitted several times). That has not prevented you from holding forth on both subjects. Let me suggest (as I said, you don’t have to follow the suggestion — freedom of speech and all that) you refrain from posting on this until you study enough so you know what you’re talking about. Since you don’t care what I say, I won’t recommend my Club Design Notes as a place to start. But ….
But? Why bother with an average joe public like me? I don’t understand; obviously you must have spent years of studying and reading about clubmaking and its complexities. So what are the fundamentals required in developing and manufacturing clubs? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ON CLONES: - Get the Golfsmith catalog, the Pro-Swing catalog, and the Edwin Watts catalog. Look at all three carefully. Then tell me if you still can’t tell the difference between a Golfsmith clubhead and a clone. - Better yet, don’t tell me. Read articles about clones in the golf club trade press. They know what the issues are, and you might learn somthing by finding out what the issues are. THEN go back and look at the three catalogs. If you STILL think there’s a problem — from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance — I’ll be glad to discuss it rationally with you. ON CLUB DESIGN: - Cochran & Stobbs – "The Search for the Perfect Swing." - T. Jorgensen – "The Physics of Golf." - Summitt & Wishon – "The Modern Guide to Shaft Fitting." These are good starting points. This is not a stereotype. A stereotype is a label based on superficial characteristics, usually working from assumed GROUP identity. THIS, OTOH, is a conclusion based on YOUR posts, which convey a consistent willingness to hold forth on subjects where you don’t have any facts but are quite prepared to argue anyway. That sounds like a reasonable working definition of "noisemaker".
Sounds like you don’t approve of people who don’t hold your views and are quick to label people whom their opinions you don’t care about. But I guess I am a "noisemaker" for expressing my personal experiences. I don’t have any facts like quality assurance data and defective merchandise quotas, and I don’t pretent to know. Funny, i thought i was trying to prevent "noisemakers" from labeling pro-line clubs as being expensive and useless clubs compared to component clubs, but I was the one who got rear-ended by an expert. No, I don’t know about making clubs as much as you do, and if I were to get into an argument with you, you’ll probably beat me hands down. You probably have all sorts of statistical data to prove that proper club making requires great deal of effort and experience, and how pro-line comapnies don’t care about quality. Obviously you’ve read many books and have studied extensively for years to master clubmaking. I can tell from diligence and content of your posting that your customers receive the best attention and care in club-fitting and club-making. But you can’t label people as "noisemakers" who give personal experiences in dealing with a company. In terms of actual quality data, I haven’t a clue. If I am guilty of being a "noisemaker" then I can say my replies have been in response to "noisemakers" who think pro-line manufacturers make poor quality clubs and provide bad service. Here I say again what I believe: golfers should play what they like. Furthermore, I am add these: if you don’t like my opinions, no problem. If peole with dissenting opinions want to talk about, no problem. Just don’t start making personal attacks. Gees, if people talked about the national debt with this fervor, we wouldn’t have any. Franklin
Response:
DTutelman (that’s me) writes: The QUALITY DIFFERENCE is not in durability in most cases; it’s in meeting specs reliably. I have experience comparing clones with reputable component clubs (noisemakers like FRoh don’t seem to recognize the difference, but that’s their problem), and: 1. why even mention it that it’s my problem?
Because it is, and I wish it to remain your problem and not become others’ problem. As I said a month ago on a similar thread, I’m not going to try to convince you of anything, because you repeatedly demonstrate that you’re beyond convincing. I don’t care what you believe. But when you spout misinformation in answer to an honestly asked question, you make your misbeliefs the problem of people who believe you. I feel it is perfectly right for me to point this out when it occurs. 2. Correct me if I am wrong, but is Golfsmith a reputable component company? 3. Clones and knock-offs are made to look like pro-line clubs, right? 4. why does the Jetstream stuff sold by Golfsmith look like Berthas? Can’t Golfsmith make heads without copying por-line heads? I noticed many of their heads look like pro-line heads, but they are not clones but "components"? (one bright exception would be the Penick line, but they are quite expensive, I hear)
^^^^^^ You HEAR? You’re saying this without seeing the catalog? Again, you’re speaking from a point of no information whatsoever, just strongly held opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion. In the USA, and on the Internet, you’re entitled to speak your opinion. But I’m equally entitled to point out that you’re wrong. (BTW, that’s true whether or not you’re wrong. Freedom of speech means it’s left to the reader whom to believe.) You clearly don’t know what’s involved in either club design (which you’ve admitted several times), nor in the clone lawsuits (which you’ve admitted several times). That has not prevented you from holding forth on both subjects. Let me suggest (as I said, you don’t have to follow the suggestion — freedom of speech and all that) you refrain from posting on this until you study enough so you know what you’re talking about. Since you don’t care what I say, I won’t recommend my Club Design Notes as a place to start. But …. ON CLONES: - Get the Golfsmith catalog, the Pro-Swing catalog, and the Edwin Watts catalog. Look at all three carefully. Then tell me if you still can’t tell the difference between a Golfsmith clubhead and a clone. - Better yet, don’t tell me. Read articles about clones in the golf club trade press. They know what the issues are, and you might learn somthing by finding out what the issues are. THEN go back and look at the three catalogs. If you STILL think there’s a problem — from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance — I’ll be glad to discuss it rationally with you. ON CLUB DESIGN: - Cochran & Stobbs – "The Search for the Perfect Swing." - T. Jorgensen – "The Physics of Golf." - Summitt & Wishon – "The Modern Guide to Shaft Fitting." These are good starting points. 5. And this labeling me as a noisemaker: I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are a nice person and don’t go around stereoptying people. If you don’t do it in real life, don’t do it here.
This is not a stereotype. A stereotype is a label based on superficial characteristics, usually working from assumed GROUP identity. THIS, OTOH, is a conclusion based on YOUR posts, which convey a consistent willingness to hold forth on subjects where you don’t have any facts but are quite prepared to argue anyway. That sounds like a reasonable working definition of "noisemaker". Cheers! Dave
Response:
I guess Jetstream has to make it different than the Bertha or it would be labeled as a knock-off or a clone. Am i wrong in saying that the sole of the Jetstreams look very similar to the sole on the Bertha woods? I think that you are quite correct. There is no doubt that the Bertha woods are hugely copied throughout the industry. The sole features of their clubs were pretty much original to them, as far as I know.
If you mean the keel sole, it vastly predates them. Stan Thompson designed the Ginty trouble woods with a keel sole decades ago. I was told by a rep from Thompson’s new company that Callaway bought up Thompson’s old operation just for the couple of years left on the patent. Judging from Callaway’s reluctance to prosecute just for keeling the sole, I have to assume that the patent has expired. (They last 17 years from date of issue, so that’s plausible.) The overall proportions, plan, the short hosel, the special o-rings are all their doing, and widely copied.
Actually, that’s an interesting observation from a point of view of: 1. Club design, and 2. Clone lawsuits. It was kinda courageous of the TM Bubble to buck this trend. The only thing about Jetstreams is that they were pretty much the last to this party, so far.
And this is interesting from a point of view of: 3. Market positioning. 1. CLUB DESIGN IMHO, the keel sole serves a very useful purpose. Thompson recognized this and patented it. I would think hard before I got myself a wood without it. (YMMV, and that’s OK; this is my personal preference. But it’s based on a real engineering characteristic that I consider important for my game.) OTOH, the other stuff (O-Ring, short hosel, through-bore) are — again IMHO — disfunctional design points. The first two put more stress on the shaft (and over the years, Callaway metalwoods have been notorious for breaking graphite shafts). The third makes the club harder to build; the only reason Callaway needs it is to relieve some of the extra stress created by the O-Ring and short hosel. Oh yeah, and it gives them another point in arguing…. 2. CLONE LAWSUITS So why did they do this other stuff, and why did other companies copy them? One word: CLONES! Most (all?) of Callaway’s lawsuits have been aimed at the clubs that copied the non-functional or disfunctional features of the Berthas. It was much easier to prove that a zero-hosel or an O-ring was a deliberate attempt to copy "trade dress" than to prove that a non-patented helpful piece of engineering was an attempt to clone. And it was even easier if the cosmetics (logo, type font, color scheme) was similar. Basically: - If you copy a functional and non-patented feature, that’s legitimate engineering. - If you copy something patented, that an actionable violation. - If you copy non-functional or cosmetic stuff, that’s evidence that you are just trying to cash in on Callaway’s reputation. That’s the working definition of "cloning", and can lose you a lawsuit. Little anecdote here… I have long liked Acer clubheads (sold by Hireko and lots of others). Acer tends to live on the legal side of the clone line, copying features but not whole clubheads. For a long time, the Acer M160 was my standard metalwood head. Some years ago (maybe 1992 or so), Acer changed its M160 design, under pressure from Callaway’s lawyers. Why? Was it the keel sole, the somewhat short hosel (still much longer than Callaway’s), O-ring (no, they didn’t have one nor recommend it), or trade dress (no, not an Olde English script)? No, Acer had put a black spot on the sole where the shaft WOULD HAVE come through if it had been a bore-through, which it wasn’t. The following year, Acer’s M160 had no simulated shaft tip painted on the sole, and has had no legal problems since. 3. MARKET POSITIONING If you’re a "market leader" (like Callaway), you make huge profits based on the fact that people are willing to pay a premium for YOUR product, regardless of its INTRINSIC value. If you’re a "market follower" (like, say, Golfsmith), you make less of a profit because you have to compete on the intrinsics; you can’t just sell your name. There are also "blatant market followers" (i.e.- cloners), but we won’t discuss them as part of the legitimate market. So you’re Taylor Made, and you have a decision to make. If you follow Callaway’s lead, you’re stuck in the position of "market follower", and are forevery doomed to make lower profits. But suppose you believe you have something that (1) works, and (2) is fundamentally different from what the market leader is selling. You can take a chance by using this "product differentiation", and go for the market leader position yourself. TM had the guts to go this route, and is reaping the benefits. Its clubs demand high prices similar to Callaway. (Not quite as high perhaps, but a lot higher than the rest of the competition.) Since all the clubs have pretty similar cost of materials and manufacture, you know TM is making more profit than most of the competition. I oversimplify here a little; Callaway and Taylor spend somewhat more than the competition for R&D (resulting in the real improvements) and A LOT MORE than the competition on marketing (including advertising and endorsements) to maintain their product differentiation. Cheers! Dave
Response:
So you are saying Berthas look like Pings? So I guess all the cars look alike: they all have four wheels, a transmission, and an engine.
No I am saying that every new inovation breads many copies, and the blame for that rests not just on clones, components, but on OEMs also. Call is an inovator, but they are only entitled to the revenue which flows from the inovation/trade dress, not any simmilarity, if the latter was true, then they would owe Ping for one. Not any more than can the OEMs, they copy each other also. I have to agree with you to some extent, however. Even though the better component makers don’t clone clubs, they do business in a very diferent way. They sell dozens of different options. Most all of these clubs are designed to knock off some aspect of OEM, even though they are not going to be clones due to legal issues. As yet, we don’t have any component company which will promote a single unified prodduct line, like Berthas. Harvey Pennick would be like this if Golfsmith didn’t sell all the other stuff. Exactly. Different golfers prefer different style, look, feel,..etc. You said exactly what I am trying to say: "most all of these clubs are designed to knock-off some aspect of OEM, even though they are not going to be clones due to legal issues".
Yes, I think we agree on that, and it goes for the OEMs also, they knock each other off. You may be assuming somewhere here that there is a theft factor (I know you haven’t said this, just me being helpful ;0) ) That because the components are so cheap it means they don’t offer either quality, or that they stole their inovation. I content that they are, like many great modern success stories, engaged in unbundling survices. Do you want to have a pro player to feel psycologically supported by, do you want ridiculously (there is a line between insurance against risk, and paying for normal down stream service which just means you are buying clubs and bad service down the road, it would be faster from your pro, you can’t seriously think it is free) generous guarantees and service levels, do you want national advertising, do you want cache and bragging rights. If you want all these, go OEM, if you just want to pay far what you hit balls with buy a component. I am not calling one or the other right, I just like to have the option of buying only those services I actually need. It is like a discount broker. Idiots argue and say one way is right or wrong unfortunately with a few exceptions neither side is letting you buy things the way you want. Will Golfsmith take the head back and give you a new one? You have to spend the time and materials to fix your clubs?
This is honestly cheapper than putting them in the mail, and faster, you have to want to do it. Golfsmith will replace flaws in what they did, not in what I did. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is the myth of Guarantee and Service. Far better if they just got it right in the first place: Fitted you properly for club length, made a foolproof stand bag, or in my case got the grip for my mucho expensive Big Bertha putter on straight in the first place. Will I provide guarantee service on missalligned Betha putters bought for myself: Absolutely! I think I am fighting a losing battle here: I am speaking with yet another Bertha, Ping and TM -hater. "why spend big money for Berthas when you can buy "components" and save some bucks?" But I want to address several things you said. the first is your comment about servicing your clubs yourself. I think it is swell that you like making your own clubs, but my statements are to the maker of the components. If you wanted to lengthen the shaft of your clubs, say 1". Will Golfsmith give you free plugs, grip, tape, solvent, and give you money for your effort three years down the road after you built you clubs? Grips are quite expensive as I recall for a full set. The latter is true.
I salute Callaways profitability, but it isn’t the result of not charging you for the cost of replacement grips, they are charging. Regarding defective items: there is no company that sells perfect products all the time. Improper designs and product improvements are part of doing business. What separates consumer-oriented companies is how they take care of the customers. Now if you are suggesting that Callaway is a bad company for selling me bags that broke after two years of use, I say you are wrong.
Fair enough, but actually I am not saying that, but rather that Guarantees don’t mean as much as selling good stuff to start with. Why would anyone buy a Call bag, they don’t make them. I would rather buy that stuff from someone who does it right, than deal with returns etc… If by chance I do find a problem with my Berthas, you know what Callaway will do? They’ll send me a second day air shipping tag, fix the clubs and return it second day air. Or I can take it to any proshop that carries Berthas for repair or replacement. I am not saying Callaway is a perfect company and I know no company is, but to me Callaway has proven itself as a company that will make sure you are satisfied.
You pay for this, Your clubs sound like they have better health care than the average american. Why won’t you let me play what I want to play?
Huh? I don’t have any problem with you playing with whatever you’re playing with now.
Very decent of you I can tell from your response that you don’t like Berthas or Pings or TM
Don’t remember saying this. I have a Bertha putter, S2H2 irons, Tm Bubble driver(anyone who disbelieves this is welcome to come over and buy them) or other OEM companies, and that’s ok; that’s your preference. But don’t go around lambasting golfers who use Berthas, Zings, and Bubbles, ok?
As where? My point from the outset is that customers define what customer service is. I contend that Callaways customer service isn’t as great as you say, since it doesn’t understand that. They will only sell you how they want to sell you. That is their perogative. I would buy components from them in a flash, obviously at a premium price, i just don’t appreciate having to buy stuff I don’t need also. I would buy their heads, but the Memphis Ten shaft is pure crap, and their proffesional players know exactly what I am talking about. They tried 30+ times to get a playable shaft in Bob Murphy’s driver, and they only barely succeeded. I know stuff which Callaway doesn’t know, like what shafts I hit well, why should I pay them for telling me what I know? They aren’t interested. So I highly question your view that they are interested in serving customers They are like Ma Bell before deregulation (except nobody is talking monopoly here). Meanwhile they are blowing their collective customers dimes by giving you about $50 of grips. How does this help me. It is like the federal government they give you tons of great service, as long as you let them pad their delivery with 50% inefficiency. Don’t get me wrong, I know that they have got a great business plan, and why all these strategies work. You can’t lable it service, it is marketing. Thoams – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thomas On a separate occasion, I sent my 95 Bertha Irons which I’ve had for three years to the company for shaft-lengthening. It was done free of charge; heads buffed and new half-cords and all. FJR weber.u.washington.edu/~froh "where the heck is Arlington?"
Response:
I guess Jetstream has to make it different than the Bertha or it would be labeled as a knock-off or a clone. Am i wrong in saying that the sole of the Jetstreams look very similar to the sole on the Bertha woods?
I think that you are quite correct. There is no doubt that the Bertha woods are hugely copied throughout the industry. The sole features of their clubs were pretty much original to them, as far as I know. The overall proportions, plan, the short hosel, the special o-rings are all their doing, and widely copied. It was kinda courageous of the TM Bubble to buck this trend. The only thing about Jetstreams is that they were pretty much the last to this party, so far. The odd thing about the Bertha’s was that they have so many contradictory features, arguable the key to brilliant synthesis. Take for example the hype about the minimal weight lowering acheivable through a short hosel (S2H2 technology) vs the substantial weight raising required to execute the Warbird sole. The latter is slightly odd on a driver, since most of us don’t have the game to play it off the fairway (well I do, modestly, often if I heave a slice short and behind a tree on the right edge of the fairway, I have the perfect set-up to heave a huge slice back towards the green). This design seems to have reached its limit with Ti, where high CG has become a problem, and a flat sole would be better able to lower weight. Cheers, Thomas I – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -haven’t seen the Jetstream irons, but from what I see on the ads, it looks quite similar to the Berthas. Play the clubs you want. I do.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My intention is not to start a flame war with you, Franklin, but the only similarity between Big Bertha irons and Golfsmith Jetstreams is that they both have comparatively "long" blades and they’re both cavity backs. I am a hobbyist clubmaker of the opinion that clone clubs are unethical and inheritantly bad for the game. If you looked at these two clubs side by side you would notice that the Jetstream has a thin topline compared to the BB’s half inch or so. Don’t BB’s also have a very short, bore-through hosel as well? The Jetstreams have a conventional hosel. To put these fine components in the same class as the Big Brother and other knock-offs is unjustified IMHO. As a matter of fact, I demo’d a set of Big Bertha’s a couple of years ago because I liked the long blade and low cg, but I didn’t care for the extremely thick top line (or the price). I hope you take this in the manner it’s intended, because I agree with a lot of your points, but Callaway does not have a patent on blade length, which is the only similarity between Jetstreams and Big Berthas.
And if you like the Jetstreams better than the Berthas, play with them. Why should you pay extra for Bertha when you like the less expensive Jetstreams? I guess Jetstream has to make it different than the Bertha or it would be labeled as a knock-off or a clone. Am i wrong in saying that the sole of the Jetstreams look very similar to the sole on the Bertha woods? I haven’t seen the Jetstream irons, but from what I see on the ads, it looks quite similar to the Berthas. Play the clubs you want. I do.
Response:
The QUALITY DIFFERENCE is not in durability in most cases; it’s in meeting specs reliably. I have experience comparing clones with reputable component clubs (noisemakers like FRoh don’t seem to recognize the difference, but that’s their problem), and: 1. why even mention it that it’s my problem?
"Problem" asside, this does seem to be your view, and components are different from clones. 2. Correct me if I am wrong, but is Golfsmith a reputable componentcompany? 3. Clones and knock-offs are made to look like pro-line clubs, right? 4. why does the Jetstream stuff sold by Golfsmith look like Berthas?
Well this is obviously in the eye of the beholder, but I don’t think it is as much like Berthas as Bethas look like Pings in the sense of cavity backs. Does that make Bertha’s clones? Strictly clones are a legal issue of so simmilar as to be a violation of pattent features, generally reguarding the look. Jetstream don’t qualify. Can’t Golfsmith make heads without
copying por-line heads? Not any more than can the OEMs, they copy each other also. I have to agree with you to some extent, however. Even though the better component makers don’t clone clubs, they do business in a very diferent way. They sell dozens of different options. Most all of these clubs are designed to knock off some aspect of OEM, even though they are not going to be clones due to legal issues. As yet, we don’t have any component company which will promote a single unified prodduct line, like Berthas. Harvey Pennick would be like this if Golfsmith didn’t sell all the other stuff. If three years from now, I break a component club, will the component distributor or the club maker fix it for free? Will they lengthen shafts without charge three years after a golfer buys them?
Well there is a whole range here. I make my own clubs, will I lengthen my clubs for me for free: Absolutely! Now in terms of difference in service, I know from experience that pro-line companies will give good after-purchase service; their reputation and bottom line depends on it. In fact, I think they go beyond other indutries. I had a Callaway standbag for two years until the bottom cracked. I called Callaway and was informed that several other bags had same type of problem; they told me to take the bag to a local golf where I was immediately given a new bag.
This is the myth of Guarantee and Service. Far better if they just got it right in the first place: Fitted you properly for club length, made a foolproof stand bag, or in my case got the grip for my mucho expensive Big Bertha putter on straight in the first place. Will I provide guarantee service on missalligned Betha putters bought for myself: Absolutely! I don’t know about others, but when I receive service like that, I get very loyal.
When I buy crap like that I get very pissed off! Thomas On a separate occasion, I – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -sent my 95 Bertha Irons which I’ve had for three years to the company for shaft-lengthening. It was done free of charge; heads buffed and new half-cords and all.
Response:
Well this is obviously in the eye of the beholder, but I don’t think it is as much like Berthas as Bethas look like Pings in the sense of cavity backs. Does that make Bertha’s clones? Strictly clones are a legal issue of so simmilar as to be a violation of pattent features, generally reguarding the look. Jetstream don’t qualify.
So you are saying Berthas look like Pings? So I guess all the cars look alike: they all have four wheels, a transmission, and an engine. Not any more than can the OEMs, they copy each other also. I have to agree with you to some extent, however. Even though the better component makers don’t clone clubs, they do business in a very diferent way. They sell dozens of different options. Most all of these clubs are designed to knock off some aspect of OEM, even though they are not going to be clones due to legal issues. As yet, we don’t have any component company which will promote a single unified prodduct line, like Berthas. Harvey Pennick would be like this if Golfsmith didn’t sell all the other stuff.
Exactly. Different golfers prefer different style, look, feel,..etc. You said exactly what I am trying to say: "most all of these clubs are designed to knock-off some aspect of OEM, even though they are not going to be clones due to legal issues". If three years from now, I break a component club, will the component distributor or the club maker fix it for free? Will they lengthen shafts without charge three years after a golfer buys them? Well there is a whole range here. I make my own clubs, will I lengthen my clubs for me for free: Absolutely!
Will Golfsmith take the head back and give you a new one? You have to spend the time and materials to fix your clubs? Now in terms of difference in service, I know from experience that pro-line companies will give good after-purchase service; their reputation and bottom line depends on it. In fact, I think they go beyond other indutries. I had a Callaway standbag for two years until the bottom cracked. I called Callaway and was informed that several other bags had same type of problem; they told me to take the bag to a local golf where I was immediately given a new bag. This is the myth of Guarantee and Service. Far better if they just got it right in the first place: Fitted you properly for club length, made a foolproof stand bag, or in my case got the grip for my mucho expensive Big Bertha putter on straight in the first place. Will I provide guarantee service on missalligned Betha putters bought for myself: Absolutely!
I think I am fighting a losing battle here: I am speaking with yet another Bertha, Ping and TM -hater. "why spend big money for Berthas when you can buy "components" and save some bucks?" But I want to address several things you said. the first is your comment about servicing your clubs yourself. I think it is swell that you like making your own clubs, but my statements are to the maker of the components. If you wanted to lengthen the shaft of your clubs, say 1". Will Golfsmith give you free plugs, grip, tape, solvent, and give you money for your effort three years down the road after you built you clubs? Grips are quite expensive as I recall for a full set. Regarding defective items: there is no company that sells perfect products all the time. Improper designs and product improvements are part of doing business. What separates consumer-oriented companies is how they take care of the customers. Now if you are suggesting that Callaway is a bad company for selling me bags that broke after two years of use, I say you are wrong. Callaway claimed responsibility for the problem with the base of the bag and gave me the newly designed bag immediately. No, they didn’t make a perfect "fool-proof" bag, but they sure came close to "fool-proof" service. If by chance I do find a problem with my Berthas, you know what Callaway will do? They’ll send me a second day air shipping tag, fix the clubs and return it second day air. Or I can take it to any proshop that carries Berthas for repair or replacement. I am not saying Callaway is a perfect company and I know no company is, but to me Callaway has proven itself as a company that will make sure you are satisfied. I don’t know about others, but when I receive service like that, I get very loyal. When I buy crap like that I get very pissed off!
Why won’t you let me play what I want to play? I don’t have any problem with you playing with whatever you’re playing with now. I can tell from your response that you don’t like Berthas or Pings or TM or other OEM companies, and that’s ok; that’s your preference. But don’t go around lambasting golfers who use Berthas, Zings, and Bubbles, ok? Thomas On a separate occasion, I sent my 95 Bertha Irons which I’ve had for three years to the company for shaft-lengthening. It was done free of charge; heads buffed and new half-cords and all.
FJR weber.u.washington.edu/~froh "where the heck is Arlington?"
Response:
I haven’t seen anybody making the blanket statement: "All clones are going to fall apart on you" of some similar statement. I think it’s very useful for golfer’s who’ve had trouble with clones to mention it, and it’s not at all a contradiction for others, who have not had trouble, to say the same:
That’s because very few will fall apart. Or wear down (unless you don’t buy stainless steel; there ARE cheap zinc cluheads out there). Probably not any more than pro-line. The QUALITY DIFFERENCE is not in durability in most cases; it’s in meeting specs reliably. I have experience comparing clones with reputable component clubs (noisemakers like FRoh don’t seem to recognize the difference, but that’s their problem), and: - They’re made the same: same casting process, same materials, same construction. (Also the same as the expensive OEM clubs and components.) - They use the same shafts and grips. (Also the same as the expensive OEM clubs and components, with few exceptions; TM Bubbles are the only exception I can think of offhand.) - The clones don’t meet their loft/lie/weight specs nearly as reliably. So the longevity won’t be affected, but the playability will. In particular, the clubs are less likely to feel the same unless a very good and well equipped clubmaker matched everything up on assembly. This can be done, but it’s rare that a clone clubmaker — as opposed to a component clubmaker — will bother. I’ve done it once. After that, I stuck to reputable components. The advantage of name clubs is that there is almost always a company that is going to stand behind them: Ping doesn’t want it’s reputation damaged by a few sets of shoddy clubs, so they’re more likely to do what it takes to keep their customer happy. The knock-offs, however, have no such vested interest in their name (since it’s Ping’s–or whatever brand’s–name that they’re using).
"And that’s the truth." (Edith Ann) Cheers! Dave
Response:
My experience only; your results may/will vary. I had a set of irons made up by a multi-location golf store in the Fort Worth area. These were not knockoff heads or shafts. After two years I noticed what seemed to be a separation mark on the shaft. Since I was no longer in the FW area I took the clubs to a local golf repair shop. Every club needed to be re-epoxied. Who ever made the clubs may have been in a hurry, used the wrong stuff or whatever. The repair 3-sw cost me over 100 dollars. The lesson: if you are having your clubs made; make sure you know who you’re dealing with. Even a firm with a good reputation can / does make mistakes. Swing smooooth, play hard! Greg – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Who is making your clubs? The epoxy bond is chemical in nature and the mixing ratios are relatively critical to ensuring that the bond reaches maximum strength and durability. Also, the epoxy needs to be made specifically for the application – there are literally hundreds of ‘types’ of epoxy resins available on the market. I’ve used my clubs (home-brews) for hundreds of rounds (for over 10 years) and have had no ‘breakdowns’. Scott
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I haven’t seen anybody making the blanket statement: "All clones are going to fall apart on you" of some similar statement. I think it’s very useful for golfer’s who’ve had trouble with clones to mention it, and it’s not at all a contradiction for others, who have not had trouble, to say the same: That’s because very few will fall apart. Or wear down (unless you don’t buy stainless steel; there ARE cheap zinc cluheads out there). Probably not any more than pro-line. The QUALITY DIFFERENCE is not in durability in most cases; it’s in meeting specs reliably. I have experience comparing clones with reputable component clubs (noisemakers like FRoh don’t seem to recognize the difference, but that’s their problem), and: - They’re made the same: same casting process, same materials, same construction. (Also the same as the expensive OEM clubs and components.) - They use the same shafts and grips. (Also the same as the expensive OEM clubs and components, with few exceptions; TM Bubbles are the only exception I can think of offhand.) - The clones don’t meet their loft/lie/weight specs nearly as reliably. So the longevity won’t be affected, but the playability will. In particular, the clubs are less likely to feel the same unless a very good and well equipped clubmaker matched everything up on assembly. This can be done, but it’s rare that a clone clubmaker — as opposed to a component clubmaker — will bother. I’ve done it once. After that, I stuck to reputable components. The advantage of name clubs is that there is almost always a company that is going to stand behind them: Ping doesn’t want it’s reputation damaged by a few sets of shoddy clubs, so they’re more likely to do what it takes to keep their customer happy. The knock-offs, however, have no such vested interest in their name (since it’s Ping’s–or whatever brand’s–name that they’re using). "And that’s the truth." (Edith Ann) Cheers! Dave
I second what Dave has said. The biggest problems I’ve experienced with clone heads is clearly in quality control, specifically with specs: loft & lie and to a lesser extent, weight ratio from head to hed in a set. If you use the better heads, quality shafts & grips and assemble them according to industry standards, the clubs should perform and last as well as any OEM club. The key is proper shaft preparation and quality materials (such as a quality, high shear point, slow curing epoxy). Norman Unsworth, Owner Clark Systems Custom Golf http://home.earthlink.net/~clarksystems/
Response:
The QUALITY DIFFERENCE is not in durability in most cases; it’s in meeting specs reliably. I have experience comparing clones with reputable component clubs (noisemakers like FRoh don’t seem to recognize the difference, but that’s their problem), and:
1. why even mention it that it’s my problem? 2. Correct me if I am wrong, but is Golfsmith a reputable component company? 3. Clones and knock-offs are made to look like pro-line clubs, right? 4. why does the Jetstream stuff sold by Golfsmith look like Berthas? Can’t Golfsmith make heads without copying por-line heads? I noticed many of their heads look like pro-line heads, but they are not clones but "components"? (one bright exception would be the Penick line, but they are quite expensive, I hear) 5. And this labeling me as a noisemaker: I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are a nice person and don’t go around stereoptying people. If you don’t do it in real life, don’t do it here. - They’re made the same: same casting process, same materials, same construction. (Also the same as the expensive OEM clubs and components.) - They use the same shafts and grips. (Also the same as the expensive OEM clubs and components, with few exceptions; TM Bubbles are the only exception I can think of offhand.) - The clones don’t meet their loft/lie/weight specs nearly as reliably.
If three years from now, I break a component club, will the component distributor or the club maker fix it for free? Will they lengthen shafts without charge three years after a golfer buys them? So the longevity won’t be affected, but the playability will. In particular, the clubs are less likely to feel the same unless a very good and well equipped clubmaker matched everything up on assembly. This can be done, but it’s rare that a clone clubmaker — as opposed to a component clubmaker — will bother. I’ve done it once. After that, I stuck to reputable components. The advantage of name clubs is that there is almost always a company that is going to stand behind them: Ping doesn’t want it’s reputation damaged by a few sets of shoddy clubs, so they’re more likely to do what it takes to keep their customer happy. The knock-offs, however, have no such vested interest in their name (since it’s Ping’s–or whatever brand’s–name that they’re using).
Final note: The biggest reason why people buy clones, knock-offs, and "components" is price. If you don’t want to spend anymore money than you have to for golf equipment, that’s fine. If you like "component" clubs better than Pings, that’s fine too. Like I have said all along, play clubs that you feel benefits your game. If you can spend $10,000 on clubs and believe they will improve your game, by all means, go ahead. If you like how $200 component clubs feel and play, you would be a fool if you don’t use them. Now in terms of difference in service, I know from experience that pro-line companies will give good after-purchase service; their reputation and bottom line depends on it. In fact, I think they go beyond other indutries. I had a Callaway standbag for two years until the bottom cracked. I called Callaway and was informed that several other bags had same type of problem; they told me to take the bag to a local golf where I was immediately given a new bag. I don’t know about others, but when I receive service like that, I get very loyal. On a separate occasion, I sent my 95 Bertha Irons which I’ve had for three years to the company for shaft-lengthening. It was done free of charge; heads buffed and new half-cords and all. Maybe I just don’t know about after service of compoment distributors and resellers, but I would gladly read any testimonials. Prove me wrong that some of the postings regarding quality problems with Golfsmith heads are not a frequent happening. Show me that the Jetstreams are component heads and not clones or knock-offs even though they look like Berthas. Franklin.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The QUALITY DIFFERENCE is not in durability in most cases; it’s in meeting specs reliably. I have experience comparing clones with reputable component clubs (noisemakers like FRoh don’t seem to recognize the difference, but that’s their problem), and: 1. why even mention it that it’s my problem? 2. Correct me if I am wrong, but is Golfsmith a reputable component company? 3. Clones and knock-offs are made to look like pro-line clubs, right? 4. why does the Jetstream stuff sold by Golfsmith look like Berthas? Can’t Golfsmith make heads without copying por-line heads? I noticed many of their heads look like pro-line heads, but they are not clones but "components"? (one bright exception would be the Penick line, but they are quite expensive, I hear) 5. And this labeling me as a noisemaker: I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are a nice person and don’t go around stereoptying people. If you don’t do it in real life, don’t do it here. - They’re made the same: same casting process, same materials, same construction. (Also the same as the expensive OEM clubs and components.) - They use the same shafts and grips. (Also the same as the expensive OEM clubs and components, with few exceptions; TM Bubbles are the only exception I can think of offhand.) - The clones don’t meet their loft/lie/weight specs nearly as reliably. If three years from now, I break a component club, will the component distributor or the club maker fix it for free? Will they lengthen shafts without charge three years after a golfer buys them? So the longevity won’t be affected, but the playability will. In particular, the clubs are less likely to feel the same unless a very good and well equipped clubmaker matched everything up on assembly. This can be done, but it’s rare that a clone clubmaker — as opposed to a component clubmaker — will bother. I’ve done it once. After that, I stuck to reputable components. The advantage of name clubs is that there is almost always a company that is going to stand behind them: Ping doesn’t want it’s reputation damaged by a few sets of shoddy clubs, so they’re more likely to do what it takes to keep their customer happy. The knock-offs, however, have no such vested interest in their name (since it’s Ping’s–or whatever brand’s–name that they’re using). Final note: The biggest reason why people buy clones, knock-offs, and "components" is price. If you don’t want to spend anymore money than you have to for golf equipment, that’s fine. If you like "component" clubs better than Pings, that’s fine too. Like I have said all along, play clubs that you feel benefits your game. If you can spend $10,000 on clubs and believe they will improve your game, by all means, go ahead. If you like how $200 component clubs feel and play, you would be a fool if you don’t use them. Now in terms of difference in service, I know from experience that pro-line companies will give good after-purchase service; their reputation and bottom line depends on it. In fact, I think they go beyond other indutries. I had a Callaway standbag for two years until the bottom cracked. I called Callaway and was informed that several other bags had same type of problem; they told me to take the bag to a local golf where I was immediately given a new bag. I don’t know about others, but when I receive service like that, I get very loyal. On a separate occasion, I sent my 95 Bertha Irons which I’ve had for three years to the company for shaft-lengthening. It was done free of charge; heads buffed and new half-cords and all. Maybe I just don’t know about after service of compoment distributors and resellers, but I would gladly read any testimonials. Prove me wrong that some of the postings regarding quality problems with Golfsmith heads are not a frequent happening. Show me that the Jetstreams are component heads and not clones or knock-offs even though they look like Berthas. Franklin.
My intention is not to start a flame war with you, Franklin, but the only similarity between Big Bertha irons and Golfsmith Jetstreams is that they both have comparatively "long" blades and they’re both cavity backs. I am a hobbyist clubmaker of the opinion that clone clubs are unethical and inheritantly bad for the game. If you looked at these two clubs side by side you would notice that the Jetstream has a thin topline compared to the BB’s half inch or so. Don’t BB’s also have a very short, bore-through hosel as well? The Jetstreams have a conventional hosel. To put these fine components in the same class as the Big Brother and other knock-offs is unjustified IMHO. As a matter of fact, I demo’d a set of Big Bertha’s a couple of years ago because I liked the long blade and low cg, but I didn’t care for the extremely thick top line (or the price). I hope you take this in the manner it’s intended, because I agree with a lot of your points, but Callaway does not have a patent on blade length, which is the only similarity between Jetstreams and Big Berthas. cb
Response:
Im looking for a new set of clubs. The rest of my fivesome use clone
clubs and really love them. Can anybody tell me the difference between these clubs other then the price? The clone clubs that I own are decent, except that the epoxy doesn’t last too long. I have played about 110 rounds with my clubs and half of them need new glue. As far as performance, I think it is more in the shaft of the club than anything. If you buy clones with a good quality shaft and the correct stiffness for your swing speed, you should be ok. Alex.
Response:
What about replacing clubs that break? Etc? All I know is my BNCM stands behind my clubs. They have replaced defective clubs everytime with out complaint for 8 years. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Im looking for a new set of clubs. The rest of my fivesome use clone clubs and really love them. Can anybody tell me the difference between these clubs other then the price? The clone clubs that I own are decent, except that the epoxy doesn’t last too long. I have played about 110 rounds with my clubs and half of them need new glue. As far as performance, I think it is more in the shaft of the club than anything. If you buy clones with a good quality shaft and the correct stiffness for your swing speed, you should be ok. Alex.
Response:
Quality is the BIG difference between a proline and clone club. I made up a DCI clone 5I as a practice club for myself. After 50 range balls, I had a nice concave dent in the sweetspot. My TM’s have hit hundreds of balls with no significant wear. I have used the Tracker rip off of the TM, I also own the TM BUbble. I get better ball flight for the clone, wear is no different.
I bet you make knock-offs, right? Perhaps you can explain to me what "better ball flight is". Did you test TMs before you bought them? Have you taken advantage of TM services in regards to making changes to your clubs? Did you not know that TMs will hit differently, which in this case is "worse"? Why did you buy clubs that did not fit your swing? There are dozens of other pro-line club manufacturers. Maybe you just fell for the bubble hype, I don’t know, but it looks to me you are just dismissing TMs when in fact they are not the right clubs for you. Another factor in this discussion is resale value. A set of clones will bring 30 to 40 cents on the dollar in resale value. A set of prolines, depending on manufacturer or model along with the normal factors of usage etc., will bring between 60 to 80 cents on the dollar. An important factor when its time to trade in the old irons for the newest and latest model. Skip Lets say you got 30 cents on the dollar, but spent only 30 cents on the dollar. The result would be a total cost equal to 20% of OEM. if you pay 100% and get back 60%(lucky in my view), your total cost is still 40%. I have made my own clones, and got back what I payed for them (the buyer saves the cost of assembly) after short term use, that is a good deal also.
hmm, I noticed clone irons can cost 200 ~300 dollars for a ste of irons. So you are spending 50~60% of a pro-set. I bought a set of DCIs for $429 and sold them two years later for $275. Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass what clubs you use as long as you like and trust them. But don’t make sweeping gerneralizations regarding knock-offs and pro-line equipment; each golfer should make their own decisions regarding their equipment. Any torts welcome.
Response:
Quality is the BIG difference between a proline and clone club. I made up a DCI clone 5I as a practice club for myself. After 50 range balls, I had a nice concave dent in the sweetspot. My TM’s have hit hundreds of balls with no significant wear.
I have made hundreds of good quality irons and never had one that dented from hitting balls. I suggest you find a new component supplier. Another factor in this discussion is resale value. A set of clones will bring 30 to 40 cents on the dollar in resale value. A set of prolines, depending on manufacturer or model along with the normal factors of usage etc., will bring between 60 to 80 cents on the dollar. An important factor when its time to trade in the old irons for the newest and latest model. Skip
I don’t believe resale value is a reason for buying clubs. If you really like them, you’ll wear them out long before you sell them.
Response:
Who is making your clubs? The epoxy bond is chemical in nature and the mixing ratios are relatively critical to ensuring that the bond reaches maximum strength and durability. Also, the epoxy needs to be made specifically for the application – there are literally hundreds of ‘types’ of epoxy resins available on the market. I’ve used my clubs (home-brews) for hundreds of rounds (for over 10 years) and have had no ‘breakdowns’. Scott
Response:
I haven’t seen anybody making the blanket statement: "All clones are going to fall apart on you" of some similar statement. I think it’s very useful for golfer’s who’ve had trouble with clones to mention it, and it’s not at all a contradiction for others, who have not had trouble, to say the same: for one golfer ot say that his clones have held up does not contradict other’s claims that they have not: the latter is makingn is that you don’t know what you’re getting with Clones–there’s no reason to expect them to all behave the same. The advantage of name clubs is that there is almost always a company that is going to stand behind them: Ping doesn’t want it’s reputation damaged by a few sets of shoddy clubs, so they’re more likely to do what it takes to keep their customer happy. The knock-offs, however, have no such vested interest in their name (since it’s Ping’s–or whatever brand’s–name that they’re using). -Ron
Response:
Im looking for a new set of clubs. The rest of my fivesome use clone clubs and really love them. Can anybody tell me the difference between these clubs other then the price?
Response:
Im looking for a new set of clubs. The rest of my fivesome use clone clubs and really love them. Can anybody tell me the difference between these clubs other then the price?
Probably not out here. One can generalise on various issues, but clones by their nature aren’t known quantities. I the same type of club your friends are playing are still available, then why not ask them. Thomas
Response:
Im looking for a new set of clubs. The rest of my fivesome use clone clubs and really love them. Can anybody tell me the difference between these clubs other then the price?
Hi Frank, Clones are generally cast in the same foundries as the originals (thus all the hoopla in customs about the King Snake) the only differnce may be the quality of the steel in the cast and the quality control of teh head itself. The loft of lie may be off a couple of degerees, etc. If you have a good clubmaker, all of those disorders can be adjusted for a reasonable fee. The same shafts and grips that pro-line clubs come equipped with are pretty much available industry wide. A company called Ripstix Golf in Florida has a full line of clones in steel and graphite. Call them on the land-line at 1-800-RIPSTIX. They’ll be happy to help you in your decision. Tell ‘em Jim sent ‘ya –Jim
Response:
Quality is the BIG difference between a proline and clone club. I made up a DCI clone 5I as a practice club for myself. After 50 range balls, I had a nice concave dent in the sweetspot. My TM’s have hit hundreds of balls with no significant wear. Another factor in this discussion is resale value. A set of clones will bring 30 to 40 cents on the dollar in resale value. A set of prolines, depending on manufacturer or model along with the normal factors of usage etc., will bring between 60 to 80 cents on the dollar. An important factor when its time to trade in the old irons for the newest and latest model. Skip
Response:
Quality is the BIG difference between a proline and clone club. I made up a DCI clone 5I as a practice club for myself. After 50 range balls, I had a nice concave dent in the sweetspot. My TM’s have hit hundreds of balls with no significant wear.
I have used the Tracker rip off of the TM, I also own the TM BUbble. I get better ball flight for the clone, wear is no different. Another factor in this
discussion is resale value. A set of clones will bring 30 to 40 cents on the dollar in resale value. A set of prolines, depending on manufacturer or model along with the normal factors of usage etc., will bring between 60 to 80 cents on the dollar. An important factor when its time to trade in the old irons for the newest and latest model. Skip
Lets say you got 30 cents on the dollar, but spent only 30 cents on the dollar. The result would be a total cost equal to 20% of OEM. if you pay 100% and get back 60%(lucky in my view), your total cost is still 40%. I have made my own clones, and got back what I payed for them (the buyer saves the cost of assembly) after short term use, that is a good deal also. Thomas