How do feel about clone golf clubs

[ode1]

Unfortunately clones and knockoffs get lumped in with quality components quite often, some think they are one in the same...that being said I mostly play components, but have no issues with clones if that is what you can afford and want to play.....plenty of OEM junk out there too.

[Quadra]

Are Hireko XDS React irons clones or knockoffs or components. I made a set with Hireko Powerflex 501 R-flex graphite(88g pretty stout shaft) and they seem to play fine. Like many GI irons they tend to want to make the ball go straight but seem very solid.

[andyby]

I got started golfing with pinemeadow clubs. Worked very well, and the price was 30% under anything the local driving range had. That was very important for 20 year old me when I was too cheap to hit more than 1 bucket a day.

[gsrjc]

I got started golfing with pinemeadow clubs. Worked very well, and the price was 30% under anything the local driving range had. That was very important for 20 year old me when I was too cheap to hit more than 1 bucket a day.

 

My friend still plays with his pinemeadow irons.

[Kelco]

I am by no means an expert. My 2 cents is not to lump all components in as clones. Clones are cheaply made to resemble name brand equipment but will never duplicate performance for numerous reasons.

 

In the component world there are many price points of exceptional original designs. Some research is required but this is where you can play clubs rivaling the OEMs top line equipment at a fraction of the cost. Its also where I have great enjoyment as a novice club builder with a steep learning curve thanks to this site.

 

I don't have a dog in this race, nor have I ever hit a "clone," so I don't really have an informed opinion one way or the other. However my tendency is to generally agree with the position that there are "clone" golf clubs of different quality, and you can't dismissed all as a group. I also agree that you can't discuss smaller producers like Wishon, Maltby, Dynacraft, and others of this ilk as clones: they are, for the most part, small OEMs who I believe are creating clubs that are easily on par with the large OEMs. (I play Wishon clubs not because I have to, but because I want to -- they kicked my Callaways out of my bag (well, actually my SMTs kicked the Callaways out, and the Wishons replaced the SMTs because I wanted something new and shiny.)

 

In terms of actual clones, however, I'm not sure that they really even deserve the small criticism that they received in the posting quoted above: "Clones are cheaply made to resemble name brand equipment but will never duplicate performance for numerous reasons." Are they cheaply made? Why won't they duplicate the performance of a brand name? What are these 'numerous' reasons for this? If you take something, reverse engineer it, and then clone it, what makes the two different:

• The materials. Really? How so? There are lots of OEM clubs cast from 17-4 steel.
  
• The tolerances. Have them adjusted just like your other clubs (assuming the clones are good enough quality to allow for adjustment -- many are).
  

Some time back I started a discussion that asked "What makes a good quality golf club?" My question was just another approach to this question about brand names vs. small OEMs vs. knock-off/clones. In one respect, I was asking "brand worshipers" to legitimize their dismissal of less well-known brands. But in another respect I was asking both large and small OEMs to describe the basis on which I was expected to dismiss clones. What makes OEM clubs higher quality. The only response came from Tom Wishon and his response focused more on the ethics of cloning. That does not address the quality question. To those of you who dismiss clones as poorer quality, what, exactly, is the basis for doing so? How are you judging their quality? "They suck" and "they're crap," doesn't count. In what way?

 

In my mind, quality doesn't have to do with the materials as much as it has to do with the suitability of the club. So a quality club is one that has

• a head design that is suited to the player's playing level
  
• a shaft that has been matched to the person's strength, swing characteristics, and sense of feel
  
• a shaft that has been cut for optimal length
  
• weighting that suits the players sense of feel
  
• a grip that has been chosen by the player for size and feel
  

In other words a fitted club.

 

I believe that a even a poor quality club (whatever that is) that has been fitted will outperform a brand named club that has been simply chosen arbitrarily off the rack (or, even worse, bought second hand from the internet). And on the topic, I would never buy a brand name club off the internet unless the person selling it could show me a very direct distribution link between him/herself and the manufacturer. There are just too many counterfeit clubs out there. You don't know what you're getting. In fact, if you want to talk about lack of quality in terms of manufacturing that dismisses the effects of internal design and weighting, look to the counterfeit club, not the clone.

 

Just my view of the world. I can be convinced otherwise.

[drumdude96]

There are some really good component clubs out there, but there are indeed some low quality knock off clubs as well. Two of the biggest issues I've seen with cheap clones are crappy grooves and iron faces that aren't flat. Golf is hard enough without having your clubs handicap you even more.

[ode1]

Are Hireko XDS React irons clones or knockoffs or components. I made a set with Hireko Powerflex 501 R-flex graphite(88g pretty stout shaft) and they seem to play fine. Like many GI irons they tend to want to make the ball go straight but seem very solid.

 

Lol.....they are components.....they do bear some similarity the diablo irons from callaway, but they are not a direct clone. there was the diablo edge, wide sole, sgi, and tons of offset; and the diablo forged, and I think the diablo bug Bertha before it.....reality is the react xds specs will be different then all of those, as they are cast, wide sole, sgi, but with low/ish offset....a nice design, following the xds react is the Dynacraft Prophet CB, very similar to the xds react, but with a hicor design, and this past year the vespa, slightly narrower sole then the react and prophet cb.

[burnsd427]

I am by no means an expert. My 2 cents is not to lump all components in as clones. Clones are cheaply made to resemble name brand equipment but will never duplicate performance for numerous reasons.

 

In the component world there are many price points of exceptional original designs. Some research is required but this is where you can play clubs rivaling the OEMs top line equipment at a fraction of the cost. Its also where I have great enjoyment as a novice club builder with a steep learning curve thanks to this site.

 

I don't have a dog in this race, nor have I ever hit a "clone," so I don't really have an informed opinion one way or the other. However my tendency is to generally agree with the position that there are "clone" golf clubs of different quality, and you can't dismissed all as a group. I also agree that you can't discuss smaller producers like Wishon, Maltby, Dynacraft, and others of this ilk as clones: they are, for the most part, small OEMs who I believe are creating clubs that are easily on par with the large OEMs. (I play Wishon clubs not because I have to, but because I want to -- they kicked my Callaways out of my bag (well, actually my SMTs kicked the Callaways out, and the Wishons replaced the SMTs because I wanted something new and shiny.)

 

In terms of actual clones, however, I'm not sure that they really even deserve the small criticism that they received in the posting quoted above: "Clones are cheaply made to resemble name brand equipment but will never duplicate performance for numerous reasons." Are they cheaply made? Why won't they duplicate the performance of a brand name? What are these 'numerous' reasons for this? If you take something, reverse engineer it, and then clone it, what makes the two different:

• The materials. Really? How so? There are lots of OEM clubs cast from 17-4 steel.
  
• The tolerances. Have them adjusted just like your other clubs (assuming the clones are good enough quality to allow for adjustment -- many are).
  

Some time back I started a discussion that asked "What makes a good quality golf club?" My question was just another approach to this question about brand names vs. small OEMs vs. knock-off/clones. In one respect, I was asking "brand worshipers" to legitimize their dismissal of less well-known brands. But in another respect I was asking both large and small OEMs to describe the basis on which I was expected to dismiss clones. What makes OEM clubs higher quality. The only response came from Tom Wishon and his response focused more on the ethics of cloning. That does not address the quality question. To those of you who dismiss clones as poorer quality, what, exactly, is the basis for doing so? How are you judging their quality? "They suck" and "they're crap," doesn't count. In what way?

 

In my mind, quality doesn't have to do with the materials as much as it has to do with the suitability of the club. So a quality club is one that has

• a head design that is suited to the player's playing level
  
• a shaft that has been matched to the person's strength, swing characteristics, and sense of feel
  
• a shaft that has been cut for optimal length
  
• weighting that suits the players sense of feel
  
• a grip that has been chosen by the player for size and feel
  

In other words a fitted club.

 

I believe that a even a poor quality club (whatever that is) that has been fitted will outperform a brand named club that has been simply chosen arbitrarily off the rack (or, even worse, bought second hand from the internet). And on the topic, I would never buy a brand name club off the internet unless the person selling it could show me a very direct distribution link between him/herself and the manufacturer. There are just too many counterfeit clubs out there. You don't know what you're getting. In fact, if you want to talk about lack of quality in terms of manufacturing that dismisses the effects of internal design and weighting, look to the counterfeit club, not the clone.

 

Just my view of the world. I can be convinced otherwise.

 

I've used pro combo 1st gen clones from Diamond tour. The Nike version is a high quality forging, the clone was cast and the finish eroded from the faces in no time. The weight distribution across the heads seemed very inconsistent from club to club. Very inconsistent feel on center strikes across the set. I've used slider clones from Monark and Diamond tour where each developed cracks in the sliding weight channel w/in a month. The sliding weight flew out of one when the channel deformed. I guess I'm generalizing but that was enough for me. BTW, both outlets do offer quality component brands. I also remember in years past some of the eye2, 845 and dci clones were well regarded.

[Kelco]

Thanks for that, BurnsD427. That's exactly the kind of information that I'm looking for.

 

These are the types of things that make me wary of clones and non-branded clubs. I bought my mom a set of Acer XDS Hybrid irons and while they play just fine, the finish chipped really easily and the clubs looked like they were years old after only a couple of months. Again, we probably can't paint this sector of the market with a broad brush, but it is these types of issues that concern me. To be completely fair, though, when I have asked others whether they have had similar experiences with small OEM finishes, the responses that I have received suggest that most hold up pretty well. Nonetheless, it seems to introduce some uncertainty that doesn't seem to exist with brand named clubs.

[burnsd427]

I've had good experiences with KZG heads, the Acer XS and XV series as well as Dynacraft Prophet. All irons. I love my Bang Big Bang driver. I've made several for friends and no complaints. Older non adjustable but 450 cc with a deep face.

[BrianB]

Lol.....they are components.....they do bear some similarity the diablo irons from callaway, but they are not a direct clone.

There's really no such thing as a "direct clone" though, as that would typically be illegal. Unless you are looking at fly by night sellers on ebay, what most people are talking about here as "clones" are really original designs made with just a few visual similarities to a popular major brand.

 

As for quality, most all reviews I've seen from those who actually have tested popular component or clone brands have said that there is typically little difference in performance, but often some meaningful differences in feel and finish. And higher quality (and cost) components may even have little difference there. How important those differences are can come down to individual preferences.

 

For myself, I can say I've gotten good value from Gigagolf irons and wedges, and Acer woods. And I'd also consider buying online from Hireko Golf, Value Golf, or Monark Golf, all of which offer good options for shafts, grips and customization. That's the main advantage I see over buying used.

[KYMAR]

Lol.....they are components.....they do bear some similarity the diablo irons from callaway, but they are not a direct clone.

There's really no such thing as a "direct clone" though, as that would typically be illegal. Unless you are looking at fly by night sellers on ebay, what most people are talking about here as "clones" are really original designs made with just a few visual similarities to a popular major brand.

 

As for quality, most all reviews I've seen from those who actually have tested popular component or clone brands have said that there is typically little difference in performance, but often some meaningful differences in feel and finish. And higher quality (and cost) components may even have little difference there. How important those differences are can come down to individual preferences.

 

For myself, I can say I've gotten good value from Gigagolf irons and wedges, and Acer woods. And I'd also consider buying online from Hireko Golf, Value Golf, or Monark Golf, all of which offer good options for shafts, grips and customization. That's the main advantage I see over buying used.

 

Direct clone meaning calling something "turner" instead of "burner" or P10G instead of PING with design features that mimic but don't actually incorporate the technology of those designs, and with colors that again seek to only imitate.

[BrianB]

Direct clone meaning calling something "turner" instead of "burner" or P10G instead of PING with design features that mimic but don't actually incorporate the technology of those designs, and with colors that again seek to only imitate.

 

Yes, but in some cases, I think they could give it a different name, a different color, a different finish, different surface markings, and people wouldn't even really make the association. When I look at Gigagolf irons, they don't even claim to be clones, don't make statements like "compare to x", but you can go down the list and see they are all obviously mimicking major brands:

 

http://www.gigagolf.com/irons_listing.jsp

 

TRX Powerslot = Taylormade Rocketbladez

TRX V.11 = Taylormade Burner 2.0

P3 Bro = Ping G30

GX922 = Callaway X-22

GX944 = Callaway RAZR X HL

 

In the same way, the Acer XDS React iron mentioned looks like it is supposed to resemble a Callaway Diablo. I might trust the quality from Acer and Gigagolf more than some others, but I think what they are doing as far as design isn't much different from the Turners and Heaters, etc.

[jacobEDGE]

I picked up a $9.99 shaft from Diamond Golf.

 

I'm not expecting it to be amazing, or something I use on every outing. But for $9.99, I can easily experiment with different lengths, flexes, weights, etc. Better than chopping a couple inches off a $200 shaft.

[RR58]

Are Hireko XDS React irons clones or knockoffs or components. I made a set with Hireko Powerflex 501 R-flex graphite(88g pretty stout shaft) and they seem to play fine. Like many GI irons they tend to want to make the ball go straight but seem very solid.

 

Lol.....they are components.....they do bear some similarity the diablo irons from callaway, but they are not a direct clone. there was the diablo edge, wide sole, sgi, and tons of offset; and the diablo forged, and I think the diablo bug Bertha before it.....reality is the react xds specs will be different then all of those, as they are cast, wide sole, sgi, but with low/ish offset....a nice design, following the xds react is the Dynacraft Prophet CB, very similar to the xds react, but with a hicor design, and this past year the vespa, slightly narrower sole then the react and prophet cb.

 

In the past, Hireko's lines were somewhat clonish (not really a word). The Acer line looked a lot like Callaway and Power Play resembled Taylor Made. Once they took over Dynacraft and Jeff Summit joined them, the designs have become more original. The only issue I ever had their heads is sometimes the finish isn't great. Then again, I've seem some OEM clubs that look like crap after a couple of years.

[BIG STU]

I am by no means an expert. My 2 cents is not to lump all components in as clones. Clones are cheaply made to resemble name brand equipment but will never duplicate performance for numerous reasons.

 

In the component world there are many price points of exceptional original designs. Some research is required but this is where you can play clubs rivaling the OEMs top line equipment at a fraction of the cost. Its also where I have great enjoyment as a novice club builder with a steep learning curve thanks to this site.

 

I don't have a dog in this race, nor have I ever hit a "clone," so I don't really have an informed opinion one way or the other. However my tendency is to generally agree with the position that there are "clone" golf clubs of different quality, and you can't dismissed all as a group. I also agree that you can't discuss smaller producers like Wishon, Maltby, Dynacraft, and others of this ilk as clones: they are, for the most part, small OEMs who I believe are creating clubs that are easily on par with the large OEMs. (I play Wishon clubs not because I have to, but because I want to -- they kicked my Callaways out of my bag (well, actually my SMTs kicked the Callaways out, and the Wishons replaced the SMTs because I wanted something new and shiny.)

 

In terms of actual clones, however, I'm not sure that they really even deserve the small criticism that they received in the posting quoted above: "Clones are cheaply made to resemble name brand equipment but will never duplicate performance for numerous reasons." Are they cheaply made? Why won't they duplicate the performance of a brand name? What are these 'numerous' reasons for this? If you take something, reverse engineer it, and then clone it, what makes the two different:

• The materials. Really? How so? There are lots of OEM clubs cast from 17-4 steel.
  
• The tolerances. Have them adjusted just like your other clubs (assuming the clones are good enough quality to allow for adjustment -- many are).
  

Some time back I started a discussion that asked "What makes a good quality golf club?" My question was just another approach to this question about brand names vs. small OEMs vs. knock-off/clones. In one respect, I was asking "brand worshipers" to legitimize their dismissal of less well-known brands. But in another respect I was asking both large and small OEMs to describe the basis on which I was expected to dismiss clones. What makes OEM clubs higher quality. The only response came from Tom Wishon and his response focused more on the ethics of cloning. That does not address the quality question. To those of you who dismiss clones as poorer quality, what, exactly, is the basis for doing so? How are you judging their quality? "They suck" and "they're crap," doesn't count. In what way?

 

In my mind, quality doesn't have to do with the materials as much as it has to do with the suitability of the club. So a quality club is one that has

• a head design that is suited to the player's playing level
  
• a shaft that has been matched to the person's strength, swing characteristics, and sense of feel
  
• a shaft that has been cut for optimal length
  
• weighting that suits the players sense of feel
  
• a grip that has been chosen by the player for size and feel
  

In other words a fitted club.

 

I believe that a even a poor quality club (whatever that is) that has been fitted will outperform a brand named club that has been simply chosen arbitrarily off the rack (or, even worse, bought second hand from the internet). And on the topic, I would never buy a brand name club off the internet unless the person selling it could show me a very direct distribution link between him/herself and the manufacturer. There are just too many counterfeit clubs out there. You don't know what you're getting. In fact, if you want to talk about lack of quality in terms of manufacturing that dismisses the effects of internal design and weighting, look to the counterfeit club, not the clone.

 

Just my view of the world. I can be convinced otherwise.

Funny that you mentioned SMT. My buddy who just sold his shop used to sell and build SMT clubs among other component brands so I am somewhat famular with the line. Today I got a E mail thing from Diamond Tour Golf and they had SMT stuff including a set of blade heads. Got to looking further and saw that those heads were cast. I promise you they said SMT and they had drivers too but none of that stuff looked like any SMT stuff I ever saw

[IsleOfMan]

Count me in the camp that has played plenty of clones and components in the past, but probably wouldn't buy much of either these days for myself given how much used club you can get for the money. But for irons/woods it's tough to even consider building something like a set of Acer XV Tours for $175 or Maltby TEs for $250 when I just got an excellent set of Mizuno MX-200s for $88 from Global. I still like to tinker, but I'll do it by buying a cheap used OEM club, pulling the made-for shaft, and starting with the head(s) as if I'd bought it as a component... adjustable woods/hybrids make this even easier these days.

 

There are definitely exceptions... I still play Inazone CNC wedges from DTG and would probably do the same if I was buying today. I don't see how you can beat them for ~$25/wedge or less, especially since so many used wedges are prone to being beat to hell.

[Greenie]

When I started out my first set was the King Snake Cobra clones. I really liked them and the price was right. I didn't know what I was missing until I bought the real deal though. Back then things were different and a clone set wasn't a bad idea for a starter set for someone on a budget. Now with the internet and what used clubs are going for do yourself a favor and get the real deal even if it is a few models old.

[Cwing]

"Clone" is a term used to describe cheap knockoffs.

 

High quality "components" can be as good as any oem.

[Kelco]

BigStu, I'm not an expert on the history of SMT, but I believe SMT made its name in drivers and only made the one model of irons before they went out of business: the 303s. They came in the CB1, CB2, and MB. Mine were combo set of CB2 and MB. All of their irons were cast, had a milled face, and were made from 303 stainless steel (hence their name). As a result, those castings could be bent a LONG way.

[John L.]

There are clones, which are disgusting in my opinion.

 

Then there are companies like KZG who make some very nice heads of their own design. A close friend of mine recently assembled a set of the ME-1 forged for a customer. He also did a muscle back set of the KZG's a while back. The weights and specs have been "spot on" according to him.

 

 

 

 

[BEND OF THE RIVER GC]

They are awful. They are stealing someone else design. Usually cheap materials.

 

And with ebay you have your massive choice of many great, used oem clubs. Why would anyone even bother with clones anymore?

[BEND OF THE RIVER GC]

Clones were a lot more prevalent 20+ years ago. I had an Integra driver that was loosely modeled after a Ping. It was the first golf club I purchased off the Internet. You picked out your head, shaft, and grip and for an $5 or $10 they would assemble the club for you.

 

I built myself a cool (so I thought anyway) Integra driver with a JLG Ultra Boom shaft and it worked fairly well for like 5 holes, until BOOM. The head exploded! Cheap metal, I never bought a component ever again.

[ode1]

Direct clone meaning calling something "turner" instead of "burner" or P10G instead of PING with design features that mimic but don't actually incorporate the technology of those designs, and with colors that again seek to only imitate.

 

Yes, but in some cases, I think they could give it a different name, a different color, a different finish, different surface markings, and people wouldn't even really make the association. When I look at Gigagolf irons, they don't even claim to be clones, don't make statements like "compare to x", but you can go down the list and see they are all obviously mimicking major brands:

 

http://www.gigagolf....ons_listing.jsp

 

TRX Powerslot = Taylormade Rocketbladez

TRX V.11 = Taylormade Burner 2.0

P3 Bro = Ping G30

GX922 = Callaway X-22

GX944 = Callaway RAZR X HL

 

In the same way, the Acer XDS React iron mentioned looks like it is supposed to resemble a Callaway Diablo. I might trust the quality from Acer and Gigagolf more than some others, but I think what they are doing as far as design isn't much different from the Turners and Heaters, etc.

 

There is a huge difference between an open foundry design whigh I suspect almost every clone is, sold by the various clone sellers with a different paint job, finish, and cavity badge vs. A company like hireko that has their own foundry and produces their own stuff. The clone sellers don't pay for their own tooling costs, r and d, and design the heads they sell, they already exist. Certainly hireko used to be more clonish in their business model, but at least they made the stuff that was clonish. They still do have some clonish or inspired by stuff, but nowhere near what it used to be. The reacts really don't resemble the diablo's at all other than they both have red in the cavity badge....it's not as if they are the acer devil or insert any synonym of diablo/devil here. In addition the specs of the reacts are different to the diablo's....add it all up, they are not a clone. Unfortunately some start out thinking any component is a clone or at the very least inferior. Way too much oem Kool aid's been sipped over the years by these folks.

[Joe85]

The mom-and-pop stores have been wiped out. I live in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis-St. Paul) and back when I started getting golf crazy in my early-20s (the early 2000s) there were at least a dozen mom-and-pop stores within a 15 mile radius of me, maybe 15 of them. There is not one of them left.

 

 

A number of them did sell "clones" but even clones are now almost done with. Though, if you looked at the Walmart clubs (I don't even know if Walmart sells clubs anymore, come to think of it) a lot of their clubs were clones.

 

 

It's so sad to see the club industry wiped out but that's like isn't it....

 

 

I got a place or two where people throw clubs away and occasionally I will get a set of clones and believe it or not there is still a set or two that people have interest on eBay still yet.

 

 

Some times they have good shafts too (S300s, or what have you..)

[dcopp7]

I play component clubs I was fit for. Dynacraft irons and Acer wedges. Affordable and very good in my, and several others opinion. The Pinemeadow type clones are garbage though IMHO

[DoubleEagleAt12]

I had a Baylormade Turner Hybrid with a firm flex shaft. It sucked.

 

I hear you. My $39 Lolex watch runs fast.

 

Hahaha that’s good stuff

[wkuo3]

To some, whatever is in the bag probably won't make much of a difference, to the others, there is a big difference between the OEM and the Clones.

OEM usually have tighter spec and use better material, and will out perform the clones if the user could tell the difference. My past experience was the OEM drivers usually were much longer than the clones. Iron or wedge made from single metal probably won't have noticeable difference but, the clones usually have spec all over the place. The spec ( loft and lie ) usually were off by as much as 10-20%. Not a big deal if someone could double check and adjust to spec.

You get what you pay for.

 

The worst is getting a cheap copy of counterfeit, piece of crap, even worse, a used copy of counterfeit.

[FlyingLaw1]

I bought a new knockoff (of a cobra) driver back when I started playing in 03-04. I think I paid about $150 for it? Used it for about half a season and the crown started to break away from the rest of the club. Replaced it with a used Ping G2 11.5* that I paid $135 for. It stayed in my bag for 5 seasons and is still the best driver I've ever owned.

 

Learned my lesson.

[Joe85]

To some, whatever is in the bag probably won't make much of a difference, to the others, there is a big difference between the OEM and the Clones.

OEM usually have tighter spec and use better material, and will out perform the clones if the user could tell the difference. My past experience was the OEM drivers usually were much longer than the clones. Iron or wedge made from single metal probably won't have noticeable difference but, the clones usually have spec all over the place. The spec ( loft and lie ) usually were off by as much as 10-20%. Not a big deal if someone could double check and adjust to spec.

You get what you pay for.

 

The worst is getting a cheap copy of counterfeit, piece of crap, even worse, a used copy of counterfeit.

 

 

I think someone that worked at 2ndswing or Golf Galaxy told me once as much as 25-50 percent of clubs you buy on line are counterfeits. He was probably just trying to scare me to just buying clubs out of his store but there are allegedly a lot of counterfeits out there (which are totally different than clone clubs, as someone pointed out earlier)