Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all. I imagine this has been hashed in part before, but interested in seeing a real thread about it: In one of the recent big Golf mags (Golf Magazine itself?) there was an article that proposed to take a critical look at cloned golf clubs. The article claimed that testing of cloned club heads showed far more inconsitecies in construction than the ‘name-brand’ counterpart. The conclusion seemed to be that, in their opinion, you aren’t getting your $$’s worth by buying imposter clubs. My question to the group is a simple one: How do you take this article and its point? i was personally disappointed with the article. I know a lot of folks that play components and "knockoffs". wither out of preference or cost, and play well and have no complaints. The Golf Magazine article lacked any technical data to back it’s claims. I believe it’s intent was simply to boost the image of the OEM’s, who are the bread and butter of their advertising revenue. It really was a bit of a cheap shot to the lesser known brands and to those who use them. Eric
Totally agree and then some. That the article was the worst I have read in a long long time. It was a pathetic placement-ad pandering to the advertisers. Reminded me of the spammers that post on RSG pretending to ask for information but really selling the very items they are asking about. The thing is, the "reviw" was such obvious pandering there is no way it could have succeeded in any purpose, it was completely valueless to anyone. The so-called writer should be taken out and shot. Putts
Response:
I don’t think your two paragraphs represent mutually exclusive groups. Many of Integra clubs are designed to look like OEMs (such as the VS88s that are in my bag).
There is certainly some overlap, your example if the VS88s is one. Integra makes both component and knockoff heads. KZG use to sell their club heads as components, just like Golfsmith, but now only their authorized club builder/dealers can buy them and they must be sold as assembled clubs. But the clubmaker buys them as components and assembles them to customer specs, so they are a hybrid OEM/component. — Dan Driscoll Member – NCGA RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html RSG Roll Call http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=driscolld
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all. I imagine this has been hashed in part before, but interested in seeing a real thread about it: In one of the recent big Golf mags (Golf Magazine itself?) there was an article that proposed to take a critical look at cloned golf clubs. The article claimed that testing of cloned club heads showed far more inconsitecies in construction than the ‘name-brand’ counterpart. The conclusion seemed to be that, in their opinion, you aren’t getting your $$’s worth by buying imposter clubs. My question to the group is a simple one: How do you take this article and its point? My first inkling is to write it off as propaganda… The magazine gets big advertising buckos from the name brands, so they are pimping for them a little bit. Being in the market for clubs, however, I wanna be careful. I don’t *want* to sink $1k on a set of irons that I could get knock-offs of for half that much (or less). Still, I don’t want to pay *any* money and get crappy clubs. Does anyone have any direct experience with the ‘real deals’ and their designer imposters? How did they compare when the rubber met the road? Or does everyone accept that you are getting less club for the $$ but saving enough to justify it? Thanks, A Nony Mouse
Given that all Nike really had to do to make Tiger happy was clone the Titleist 975D, and they failed… — Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you’ll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mike, I agree entirely with your points… I guess the real question, so to speak is this: Our local shop stocks Callaway clubs, among others. I’ve tested the VFT and BB irons and *really* like the way they feel. I managed to spend a fair amount of time on the range with both sets and it seemed I was stroking better shots with those clubs. So, good thing eight? The downside is that I am a low budget golfer. Young husband, stay at home wife/mommy, young kids…. So I don’t have a ton to spend on the game. I’d love to get one of these sets of irons, but there’s no way I can work a set of VFTs into the budget (even used). There are some good looking component look-alikes that are a lot cheaper (in my range) that I’d love to try. The trick is, they’re not on anyone’s shelf so I can’t take them to the range and see how they compare. That said, I can’t afford to roll the dice and buy them only to find out they suck compared to the real deal. I imagine someday I’ll be able to collect clubs, but that time isn’t now. I don’t mind spending some money to improve my game and my enjoyment of the game. But I hate to throw it away on an unknown. If the general consensus is that the clubs are ‘roughly’ equal, then I know what to do. I’m not an equipment snod, so the name stamped on the clubs doesn’t matter to me. Performance and ball-flight sure does! 
Any thoughts? –Mouse
Why don’t you call these guys up and see if they’ll make you a 6 iron of one of these: http://www.diamondtour.com/golfshop/irons/irons_vrg.shtml http://www.diamondtour.com/golfshop/irons/irons_grandhawk.shtml See how you like it, and then get them to make you the rest of the set. I don’t think you’ll be dissapointed.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snipped I also used some Super Concorde fairway woods. These are also made by Integra and are every bit as good as the Adams Tight Lies that they resemble. <snipped Bzztt! Sorry, but you lose. 
This is a very common mistake, people assume that because a club is from a component manufacturer that it must be a clone or knock-off, which is completely wrong. Super Concorde (SC) clubs are NOT clones or knock-offs and they originally designed and manufactured by Nickent, not Integra. The SC clubs were on the market BEFORE the Tight Lies and if anything, the Tight Lies is a clone of the SC. — Dan Driscoll Member – NCGA RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html RSG Roll Call http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=driscolld
Well… I apologize to the group for my inferior knowledge of the history of the Super Concorde woods Regardless; They are good clubs. And that was my point. I actually still have them. The only reason I don’t use them regularly is because of the shallow face. I use the Adams GT woods now. They are great from the fairway, but not the rough or the tee. I appreciate your insight, because I didn’t know that about the Tight Lies.
Response:
I think the biggest misconception about this–one that IMO the golf magazines don’t mind perpetuating–is that anything that is not "name brand" is a "clone." This is not true.
I read that article. It seemed to me the magazine went out of its way to imply that if something isn’t made by one of the well-know clum manufacturers, it is a cheap clone. They were unwilling to mention brand names for one thing. There was no discussion of components vs. clones. What’s a clone? It’s a copy of a name brand club. But not all component clubheads–perhaps not even half–are "clones" in the sense of trying to copy a name brand design. But it can’t be too close a copy, otherwise the "cloner" would be sued. Clearly, component makers try to produce designs that look similar to, if don’t perform in the same way as, OEM designs. For instance, the Dynacraft PC3 clubhead is similar to the Ping I/3 clubhead (at least older models). It’s got a medallion, it comes in both flat and upright lie angle versions (like Ping, though Ping has many more options).
It is also true that the major manufacturers copy each other. Once Adams released its Tight Lies, lots of others came in with their own "upside down" lines. The article focused not on mimicry, but on near-identical cosmetics. Well that eliminates the Golfsmiths of the world, but there was no mention of that. In fact I felt they were trying intentionally to imply that any components were low quality cosmetic clones.
Response:
Components are club components designed and sold generally as separate components and occasionally pre-assembled. These companies include Dynacraft, Chicago Golf, Golfsmith, Golfworks, Integra, Nickent, Raven, etc. Knock-offs are designed to look like OEM clubs, but differ just enough so that they do not infringe on trademarks or patents.
I don’t think your two paragraphs represent mutually exclusive groups. Many of Integra clubs are designed to look like OEMs (such as the VS88s that are in my bag). Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx Home: http://home.stx.rr.com/dclary Never Forget: http://www.politicsandprotest.org RSG Roll Call http://www.rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=claryd
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mike, I agree entirely with your points… I guess the real question, so to speak is this: Our local shop stocks Callaway clubs, among others. I’ve tested the VFT and BB irons and *really* like the way they feel. I managed to spend a fair amount of time on the range with both sets and it seemed I was stroking better shots with those clubs. So, good thing eight? The downside is that I am a low budget golfer. Young husband, stay at home wife/mommy, young kids…. So I don’t have a ton to spend on the game. I’d love to get one of these sets of irons, but there’s no way I can work a set of VFTs into the budget (even used). There are some good looking component look-alikes that are a lot cheaper (in my range) that I’d love to try. The trick is, they’re not on anyone’s shelf so I can’t take them to the range and see how they compare. That said, I can’t afford to roll the dice and buy them only to find out they suck compared to the real deal. I imagine someday I’ll be able to collect clubs, but that time isn’t now. I don’t mind spending some money to improve my game and my enjoyment of the game. But I hate to throw it away on an unknown. If the general consensus is that the clubs are ‘roughly’ equal, then I know what to do. I’m not an equipment snod, so the name stamped on the clubs doesn’t matter to me. Performance and ball-flight sure does! Any thoughts? –Mouse
Budget’s always a consideration, and you can only do what you can do. Family comes first. As Dan notes, depending on where you live, there may or may not be component makers around that have demos. Another alternative, which adds a bit to the cost but ends up being very satisfying in the long run is to have a couple of demo clubs made up, typically w/ a 5-iron head. It may take 2 or 3 iterations until you hit on something that you really like, but it’s a way to get what you want without spending the exhorbitant prices for OEM stuff. In fact, depending on how adventurous you are, you can try different heads, different looks. That runs into some money, but not a ton if you’re committing to buying a set. That can even be done long distance. The process is slower, of course, but it works. And it keeps the costs down. Mike Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker RSG-Wisconsin 2003 Information: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003 RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=daleckim I do not patronize spammers. Help keep RSG clean!
Response:
Teresa, –you wrote– (How many player cavity back clubs can you get in an A flex with super-duper-ultra lightweight shafts and 1/32 undersize Winngrips? None!)
Agreed… As I stated in a another F’up to the thread the issue is how to make a good choice relative to component clubs. I don’t have anyone closeby to go talk to about getting fitted… So I doubt that I’d actually get to hit with ‘my’ clubs until I’ve paid for them. I know what ‘big names’ feel good and would just like to find a reasonable way to get that response out of something less expensive. I’m sorry to sound like a cheapskate. I’m really not. But I *know* that people like Callaway are clearing a ton in profit off of the clubs because of brand recognition. And good for them, that’s what capitalism is all about. I just would rather keep some cash so I can play. If I paid what some of these people want for clubs, I’d be able to sit an look at them a lot while I watch other people play on TV. Thanks, A Nony Mouse
Response:
:My first inkling is to write it off as propaganda… The magazine gets big :advertising buckos from the name brands, so they are pimping for them a :little bit. Being in the market for clubs, however, I wanna be careful. I :don’t *want* to sink $1k on a set of irons that I could get knock-offs of :for half that much (or less). Still, I don’t want to pay *any* money and :get crappy clubs. Do what I do. Buy the latest and greatest clubs the following season. It’s not as if the clubs that were advertised as being great in 2002 aren’t going to be great in 2003. TM 360s last year: $800 for irons My *new* TM 360s this year: $300 Seems pretty simple to me. — Bryan S. Slick, bryan_s at slick-family dot net "To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Response:
Hi all. I imagine this has been hashed in part before, but interested in seeing a real thread about it: In one of the recent big Golf mags (Golf Magazine itself?) there was an article that proposed to take a critical look at cloned golf clubs. The article claimed that testing of cloned club heads showed far more inconsitecies in construction than the ‘name-brand’ counterpart. The conclusion seemed to be that, in their opinion, you aren’t getting your $$’s worth by buying imposter clubs.
<snipped There are OEMs, components, clones and knock-offs. OEMs clubs are designed and sold as assembled club by the name brand manufacturers such as Taylor Made, Mizuno, Callaway, KZ Golf, Homna, Tommy Armour, etc. Components are club components designed and sold generally as separate components and occasionally pre-assembled. These companies include Dynacraft, Chicago Golf, Golfsmith, Golfworks, Integra, Nickent, Raven, etc. Knock-offs are designed to look like OEM clubs, but differ just enough so that they do not infringe on trademarks or patents. These are often cheaply made and may be sold as component or assembled clubs. However, some are of good quality and may perform as well as an OEM or component club of similar quality. Clones are illegal copies of name brand clubs. They are generally cheaply made and poorly performing. People caught selling clones may be subject to civil and criminal penalties in the US and other countries. — Dan Driscoll Member – NCGA RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html RSG Roll Call http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=driscolld
Response:
So, in summary, "clones" is kind of a mis-nomer. The magazines tend to lump all component makes under that label, which is unfair. KZG, for instance, designs their own clubheads. They recently submitted a new driver design with a double face to the USGA for testing, a design that was proprietary (I believe an OEM outfit, perhaps Titleist, submitted something similar at the same time). Both were rejected by the USGA as nonconforming.
Most recent news on the KZG head is that the head is being re-evaluated by the USGA. Golfworks has a 305cc driver with a 3-wood loft, a fairly innovative clubhead if you ask me. I’m not aware of any OEM offering a similar kind of thing. So there’s innovative new stuff out there, coming from non-OEM sources. Just remember, when you read studies by golf magazines, where they get their advertising revenue from. Mike
A couple of good examples is the Orlimar Maraging face clubs – they licensed the technology from KZG. The Adam’s Tight Lies was a copy of a Peerless/Super Concorde design, similarily the Cobra iron (can’t remember it’s name) – the one with the slight bulge on the back of the hosel was a copy of a Peerless iron. So the major OEM’s can copy stuff — David Sneddon Hi-Tech Turf Synthetic Turf Applications
Response:
<snipped There are some good looking component look-alikes that are a lot cheaper (in my range) that I’d love to try. The trick is, they’re not on anyone’s shelf so I can’t take them to the range and see how they compare.
<snipped Ahh, but there almost certainly are professional component club makers in your area who WILL have demo clubs for you to try! Professional (and some hobbyist) component club makers keep demo clubs on hand for customers to try and for fitting. Another point, most OEM clubs are sold "off the rack", the only thing you select is the whether they have steel or graphite shafts and the flex. OTOH, component clubs will be fitted to you, including not only shaft type and flex, but also manufacturer and model. You will also be able to select the grip type and will be fitted for the proper grip size. And last, but certainly not least, most professional club builders will have a loft/lie adjustment machine, so even the club head will be fitted to you. Also keep in mind Mike’s point about how a similar looking clubs may not necessarily perform the same way. It is very possible that a component club head that looks completely different than the Callaway will not only perform just as well, but because it is properly fitted, may perform better. — Dan Driscoll Member – NCGA RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html RSG Roll Call http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=driscolld
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snipped I also used some Super Concorde fairway woods. These are also made by Integra and are every bit as good as the Adams Tight Lies that they resemble. <snipped Bzztt! Sorry, but you lose. This is a very common mistake, people assume that because a club is from a component manufacturer that it must be a clone or knock-off, which is completely wrong. Super Concorde (SC) clubs are NOT clones or knock-offs and they originally designed and manufactured by Nickent, not Integra. The SC clubs were on the market BEFORE the Tight Lies and if anything, the Tight Lies is a clone of the SC. — Dan Driscoll Member – NCGA RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html RSG Roll Call http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=driscolld
Agree totally. I played (and still occasionally do) the SC for a long time. Being a lefty, it was hard to find an appropriate 5 wood for my bag, so I built one. What I’ve found, however, is that the finish on the SC is very inferior to the Tight Lies … it began chipping badly on the club face soon after I began using it. Heck, with the way my ball flies, I don’t think the paint chips are much to worry about!! Larry
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all. I imagine this has been hashed in part before, but interested in seeing a real thread about it: In one of the recent big Golf mags (Golf Magazine itself?) there was an article that proposed to take a critical look at cloned golf clubs. The article claimed that testing of cloned club heads showed far more inconsitecies in construction than the ‘name-brand’ counterpart. The conclusion seemed to be that, in their opinion, you aren’t getting your $$’s worth by buying imposter clubs. My question to the group is a simple one: How do you take this article and its point? My first inkling is to write it off as propaganda… The magazine gets big advertising buckos from the name brands, so they are pimping for them a little bit. Being in the market for clubs, however, I wanna be careful. I don’t *want* to sink $1k on a set of irons that I could get knock-offs of for half that much (or less). Still, I don’t want to pay *any* money and get crappy clubs. Does anyone have any direct experience with the ‘real deals’ and their designer imposters? How did they compare when the rubber met the road? Or does everyone accept that you are getting less club for the $$ but saving enough to justify it? Thanks, A Nony Mouse
i was personally disappointed with the article. I know a lot of folks that play components and "knockoffs". wither out of preference or cost, and play well and have no complaints. The Golf Magazine article lacked any technical data to back it’s claims. I believe it’s intent was simply to boost the image of the OEM’s, who are the bread and butter of their advertising revenue. It really was a bit of a cheap shot to the lesser known brands and to those who use them. Eric
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The basic Titleist and Nike musclebacks are Mizuno clones. That style of club predates Mizuno though, so the Titleist and Nikes are at best clones of clones. As a biologist, I can tell you that the reduction in fitness associated with the cloning process is one of the things observed with the Dolly sheep cloning thing…apllying that observation of the natural world to golf clubs, and clones of clones aren’t that good! I have a clubhead called and SL-296…an obvious play on 962, but they don’t really look that much like 962’s. Look alikes maybe, but not clones! — RSG Masters 2004 pre-preliminary format http://home.att.net/~frostback2002 "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are" Joseph Campbell
I think it depends on how you define ‘clones’. The mag article took shots at some componants not being manufactured to high manufacturing tolerances. The Mizunos, Titleists, and Nikes are all made to fine tolerances at repected shops, so we can trust that they have some quality behind them. Many of the lookalikes are not made this way, we have no idea where some are made, have inconsistent manufacturing, and therin lies the knock on the lookalikes–some of them.
Response:
<snipped I also used some Super Concorde fairway woods. These are also made by Integra and are every bit as good as the Adams Tight Lies that they resemble.
<snipped Bzztt! Sorry, but you lose. This is a very common mistake, people assume that because a club is from a component manufacturer that it must be a clone or knock-off, which is completely wrong. Super Concorde (SC) clubs are NOT clones or knock-offs and they originally designed and manufactured by Nickent, not Integra. The SC clubs were on the market BEFORE the Tight Lies and if anything, the Tight Lies is a clone of the SC. — Dan Driscoll Member – NCGA RSG FAQ: http://ttsoft.com/thor/rsggolf.html RSG Roll Call http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=driscolld
Response:
Mike, I agree entirely with your points… I guess the real question, so to speak is this: Our local shop stocks Callaway clubs, among others. I’ve tested the VFT and BB irons and *really* like the way they feel. I managed to spend a fair amount of time on the range with both sets and it seemed I was stroking better shots with those clubs. So, good thing eight? The downside is that I am a low budget golfer. Young husband, stay at home wife/mommy, young kids…. So I don’t have a ton to spend on the game. I’d love to get one of these sets of irons, but there’s no way I can work a set of VFTs into the budget (even used). There are some good looking component look-alikes that are a lot cheaper (in my range) that I’d love to try. The trick is, they’re not on anyone’s shelf so I can’t take them to the range and see how they compare. That said, I can’t afford to roll the dice and buy them only to find out they suck compared to the real deal. I imagine someday I’ll be able to collect clubs, but that time isn’t now. I don’t mind spending some money to improve my game and my enjoyment of the game. But I hate to throw it away on an unknown. If the general consensus is that the clubs are ‘roughly’ equal, then I know what to do. I’m not an equipment snod, so the name stamped on the clubs doesn’t matter to me. Performance and ball-flight sure does! Any thoughts? –Mouse
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What’s a clone? It’s a copy of a name brand club. But not all component clubheads–perhaps not even half–are "clones" in the sense of trying to copy a name brand design. But it can’t be too close a copy, otherwise the "cloner" would be sued. More recently, there were a bunch of component heads made which mimic the Callway VFT clubhead design, which looks like this: http://callawaygolf.com/irons/HEirons.asp The Acer XDS line is a similar-looking iron, don’t you think? http://www.pattongolf.com/images/TI0211_tiny.jpg Will they perform the same? No way. That doesn’t mean the Callway will be better, just that you aren’t going to get a component look-alike (which I like better than the label "clone," BTW) that is going to perform the same as the OEM. It may perform better, or worse, and that depends on how it’s constructed and out of what components. That said, I’ve never run across a component head whose performance was, well, bad. I think that some of the cheapest driver heads, for instance, may tend to be borderline on issues of quality control, but that in my experience has been rare.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all. I imagine this has been hashed in part before, but interested in seeing a real thread about it: In one of the recent big Golf mags (Golf Magazine itself?) there was an article that proposed to take a critical look at cloned golf clubs. The article claimed that testing of cloned club heads showed far more inconsitecies in construction than the ‘name-brand’ counterpart. The conclusion seemed to be that, in their opinion, you aren’t getting your $$’s worth by buying imposter clubs. My question to the group is a simple one: How do you take this article and its point? My first inkling is to write it off as propaganda… The magazine gets big advertising buckos from the name brands, so they are pimping for them a little bit. Being in the market for clubs, however, I wanna be careful. I don’t *want* to sink $1k on a set of irons that I could get knock-offs of for half that much (or less). Still, I don’t want to pay *any* money and get crappy clubs. Does anyone have any direct experience with the ‘real deals’ and their designer imposters? How did they compare when the rubber met the road? Or does everyone accept that you are getting less club for the $$ but saving enough to justify it? Thanks, A Nony Mouse
I couldn’t get what I really wanted with OEM people, so I had a set made. Buying my component clubs was the best $450 I ever invested in my game. (How many player cavity back clubs can you get in an A flex with super-duper-ultra lightweight shafts and 1/32 undersize Winngrips? None!)
Response:
My question to the group is a simple one: How do you take this article and its point?
No. I’m sure you can get crappy clones, just as you can crappy brand name clubs. The issue of cloned clubs is a bit of a canard anyway – why didn’t they test any of the excellent, non-clone component clubheads, hmm? It just wouldn’t do to have the rubes wondering how $20 worth of parts becomes a $120 brand name club. But we’ll never hear about any of that, because as you suggest the trade rags always agree with the largest advertising budgets.
Response:
My question to the group is a simple one: How do you take this article and its point? No. I’m sure you can get crappy clones, just as you can crappy brand name clubs. The issue of cloned clubs is a bit of a canard anyway – why didn’t they test any of the excellent, non-clone component clubheads, hmm? It just wouldn’t do to have the rubes wondering how $20 worth of parts becomes a $120 brand name club. But we’ll never hear about any of that, because as you suggest the trade rags always agree with the largest advertising budgets.
The basic Titleist and Nike musclebacks are Mizuno clones. That style of club predates Mizuno though, so the Titleist and Nikes are at best clones of clones. As a biologist, I can tell you that the reduction in fitness associated with the cloning process is one of the things observed with the Dolly sheep cloning thing…apllying that observation of the natural world to golf clubs, and clones of clones aren’t that good! I have a clubhead called and SL-296…an obvious play on 962, but they don’t really look that much like 962’s. Look alikes maybe, but not clones! — RSG Masters 2004 pre-preliminary format http://home.att.net/~frostback2002 "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are" Joseph Campbell
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all. I imagine this has been hashed in part before, but interested in seeing a real thread about it: In one of the recent big Golf mags (Golf Magazine itself?) there was an article that proposed to take a critical look at cloned golf clubs. The article claimed that testing of cloned club heads showed far more inconsitecies in construction than the ‘name-brand’ counterpart. The conclusion seemed to be that, in their opinion, you aren’t getting your $$’s worth by buying imposter clubs. My question to the group is a simple one: How do you take this article and its point? My first inkling is to write it off as propaganda… The magazine gets big advertising buckos from the name brands, so they are pimping for them a little bit. Being in the market for clubs, however, I wanna be careful. I don’t *want* to sink $1k on a set of irons that I could get knock-offs of for half that much (or less). Still, I don’t want to pay *any* money and get crappy clubs. Does anyone have any direct experience with the ‘real deals’ and their designer imposters? How did they compare when the rubber met the road? Or does everyone accept that you are getting less club for the $$ but saving enough to justify it? Thanks, A Nony Mouse
I think the biggest misconception about this–one that IMO the golf magazines don’t mind perpetuating–is that anything that is not "name brand" is a "clone." This is not true. What’s a clone? It’s a copy of a name brand club. But not all component clubheads–perhaps not even half–are "clones" in the sense of trying to copy a name brand design. But it can’t be too close a copy, otherwise the "cloner" would be sued. Clearly, component makers try to produce designs that look similar to, if don’t perform in the same way as, OEM designs. For instance, the Dynacraft PC3 clubhead is similar to the Ping I/3 clubhead (at least older models). It’s got a medallion, it comes in both flat and upright lie angle versions (like Ping, though Ping has many more options). The Ping model: http://pinggolf.com/images/products/irons/i3plus_hero.jpg The Dynacraft model: http://store1.yimg.com/I/dynacraftgolf_1729_1367087 I’ve made clubs w/ the PC/3, and I consider it a fine clubhead. It’s *not* the same as the Ping, however; Ping would sue Dynacraft if it were. But realize too that so much of what makes a "ping" a "ping" is head weight, shaft selection, length, and so on. The head is only part of the equation, and I’d argue probably not the most important part. More recently, there were a bunch of component heads made which mimic the Callway VFT clubhead design, which looks like this: http://callawaygolf.com/irons/HEirons.asp The Acer XDS line is a similar-looking iron, don’t you think? http://www.pattongolf.com/images/TI0211_tiny.jpg Will they perform the same? No way. That doesn’t mean the Callway will be better, just that you aren’t going to get a component look-alike (which I like better than the label "clone," BTW) that is going to perform the same as the OEM. It may perform better, or worse, and that depends on how it’s constructed and out of what components. That said, I’ve never run across a component head whose performance was, well, bad. I think that some of the cheapest driver heads, for instance, may tend to be borderline on issues of quality control, but that in my experience has been rare. OEM clubs are not infallible, nor are they sometimes, in my view, even as good as a well-made component club or set. I’ve analyzed a number of OEM brand sets and clubs; I’ve found them to be worse, in some cases, than what you might expect even from a novice clubmaker! Flexes all over the place, poor epoxy jobs, even in one case w/ Cleveland wedges, the sand wedge and gap wedge were mis-stamped! That is, what said 52 degrees was really a sand wedge, complete with extra bounce, and the club labelled sand wedge was equivalent to a gap wedge, with normal bounce (and having said that, I think Cleveland wedges are pretty good, generally). But having said that, to be fair, there’s a lot of good OEM stuff out there. A lot of people at my club hit Ping drivers, good players. They stick with them, so they must be getting good performance. There are a lot of Big Bertha clubs out there, clubs that are several years old but which work wonderfully for the guys playing them. It’s just that you have to pay for the privilege of owning those clubs, and pay a lot for that privilege. What OEM’s have going for them more than anything is budgets. They can get name players to play their stuff on tour. When you see a name player with a name brand, you think "Hey, it must be pretty decent if he’s playing it." And they are, though the club he’s playing is very likely not the same club you might buy in the store (they’re often tweaked and modified). Many amateur players also want the cachet of pulling a "Callaway" or an "I/3" from their bags. It’s a status symbol as much as anything for some people. And there’s a feeling of security. For some people, that’s important, and that’s their right to search out that. The component companies don’t have those budgets. Golfsmith, for a while, had Scott Verplank playing their irons. Then he went out and won a tournament, and then got a much richer contract from an OEM. That tells you something, I guess, about not only the quality of the stuff Golfsmith produced for him (it was good enough to win a PGA tour tournament), but also about the ability of Golfsmith to match what the OEM makers can offer players to play their clubs. So, in summary, "clones" is kind of a mis-nomer. The magazines tend to lump all component makes under that label, which is unfair. KZG, for instance, designs their own clubheads. They recently submitted a new driver design with a double face to the USGA for testing, a design that was proprietary (I believe an OEM outfit, perhaps Titleist, submitted something similar at the same time). Both were rejected by the USGA as nonconforming. Golfworks has a 305cc driver with a 3-wood loft, a fairly innovative clubhead if you ask me. I’m not aware of any OEM offering a similar kind of thing. So there’s innovative new stuff out there, coming from non-OEM sources. Just remember, when you read studies by golf magazines, where they get their advertising revenue from. Mike Mike Dalecki GCA Accredited Clubmaker RSG-Wisconsin 2003 Information: http://dalecki.net/rsgwis2003 RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=daleckim I do not patronize spammers. Help keep RSG clean!
Response:
There are cheap clones, and there are good non OEM clubs, and everything in between. A clone could be a cosmetic clone only. I remember reading a post from a Taylor employee. They had purchased a Johnny burner (or some such name) which was a cosmetic clone of their first bubble shafted driver. Its playing characteristics were different from the real product in every way, weight, bend point, flex, torque, balance point etc. On the other end of the scale, I took my Golfsmith clubs into a local store to have the lie altered, and the guy doing the work was surprised, compared to other sets the done, how consistent the golfsmith clubs were. Of course, I don’t consider golfsmith clones. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all. I imagine this has been hashed in part before, but interested in seeing a real thread about it: In one of the recent big Golf mags (Golf Magazine itself?) there was an article that proposed to take a critical look at cloned golf clubs. The article claimed that testing of cloned club heads showed far more inconsitecies in construction than the ‘name-brand’ counterpart. The conclusion seemed to be that, in their opinion, you aren’t getting your $$’s worth by buying imposter clubs. My question to the group is a simple one: How do you take this article and its point? My first inkling is to write it off as propaganda… The magazine gets big advertising buckos from the name brands, so they are pimping for them a little bit. Being in the market for clubs, however, I wanna be careful. I don’t *want* to sink $1k on a set of irons that I could get knock-offs of for half that much (or less). Still, I don’t want to pay *any* money and get crappy clubs. Does anyone have any direct experience with the ‘real deals’ and their designer imposters? How did they compare when the rubber met the road? Or does everyone accept that you are getting less club for the $$ but saving enough to justify it? Thanks, A Nony Mouse
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi all. I imagine this has been hashed in part before, but interested in seeing a real thread about it: In one of the recent big Golf mags (Golf Magazine itself?) there was an article that proposed to take a critical look at cloned golf clubs. The article claimed that testing of cloned club heads showed far more inconsitecies in construction than the ‘name-brand’ counterpart. The conclusion seemed to be that, in their opinion, you aren’t getting your $$’s worth by buying imposter clubs. My question to the group is a simple one: How do you take this article and its point? My first inkling is to write it off as propaganda… The magazine gets big advertising buckos from the name brands, so they are pimping for them a little bit. Being in the market for clubs, however, I wanna be careful. I don’t *want* to sink $1k on a set of irons that I could get knock-offs of for half that much (or less). Still, I don’t want to pay *any* money and get crappy clubs. Does anyone have any direct experience with the ‘real deals’ and their designer imposters? How did they compare when the rubber met the road? Or does everyone accept that you are getting less club for the $$ but saving enough to justify it? Thanks, A Nony Mouse
I have had a few experiences with "clone" clubs… The second set of irons I owned was a set of Integra Z-III irons. I think the set cost me $98. They look similar to the Ping ISI irons, except that they are a little sharper around the edges and are polished to a mirror like finish. They are much better looking than the Pings. I use the Ping ISI’s now and can say that the Integra’s seem to have performed just as well as the real thing to me. I have a special fondness for the Integras, because they were the clubs I used to break 90 for the first time 3 years ago. I have since recently shot a 79 with the Ping’s. I ended up selling the Z-III’s on Ebay for $125 after I had played with them for a year, go figure. I also used some Super Concorde fairway woods. These are also made by Integra and are every bit as good as the Adams Tight Lies that they resemble. I had an Integra 400cc driver for a while. I’m not sure if it’s a clone of anything, but it was a good driver. All in all my experience was very positive, and the main reason that I now own brand name clubs is actually very shallow. Most everyone at the country club I belong to, has name brand stuff, and I wanted to try name brand stuff too, mainly just to see if there was a big difference. Well there’s not. That’s not to say that I’m not very happy with all of my name brand clubs, and am even happier that I got great deals on them via ebay, trades and closeouts. As a matter of fact. now that my handicap is dropping and my ball striking is improving, I am thinking of switching to blades and am seriously considering some of the new Integra forged blades and/or the small forged cavity backs that they now produce. — Regards, Irish Golf Lad "Truth was in our hearts and strength in our arms, and what we said, that we fulfilled." [Keelta of the Fianna]
Response:
Hi all. I imagine this has been hashed in part before, but interested in seeing a real thread about it: In one of the recent big Golf mags (Golf Magazine itself?) there was an article that proposed to take a critical look at cloned golf clubs. The article claimed that testing of cloned club heads showed far more inconsitecies in construction than the ‘name-brand’ counterpart. The conclusion seemed to be that, in their opinion, you aren’t getting your $$’s worth by buying imposter clubs. My question to the group is a simple one: How do you take this article and its point? My first inkling is to write it off as propaganda… The magazine gets big advertising buckos from the name brands, so they are pimping for them a little bit. Being in the market for clubs, however, I wanna be careful. I don’t *want* to sink $1k on a set of irons that I could get knock-offs of for half that much (or less). Still, I don’t want to pay *any* money and get crappy clubs. Does anyone have any direct experience with the ‘real deals’ and their designer imposters? How did they compare when the rubber met the road? Or does everyone accept that you are getting less club for the $$ but saving enough to justify it? Thanks, A Nony Mouse