Generic/Knock off Clubs..........

[Pa Jayhawk]

And if using one design feature makes a club a clone, then all the companies using bore-thru hosels, composite crowns, titanium faces, weight ports are all clones because they copied someone elses feature. As long as you combine your own ideas and creativity to existing design features, you can still come up with original designs.

Please explain how component clubs do not fit into this mix? If using that design feature as your main selling point for the club, is the fact that they put a more reputable name in your eyes what defines the new design ideas for the club? Help spell this out what are the differences you are talking about that separate this from any other component club, or clone as you seem to feel there is no difference. Specifically what did Cleveland do with their HiBore and what do they advertise above the effect the club has with COG or MOI on the Solid Tone? Yet I am sure if you saw them back to back with no introduction you would likely assume the Solid Tone is a nasty knock-off clone of the HiBore. So tell me, which is the better club? Obviously the HiBore, right?

How is any Cavity back not just a Ping knock-off, I mean the main advertising point is the forgiveness of the cavity back and perimeter weighting. I rarely see much more in the advertisement of most CB's it is by far the top selling point of any CB. Do you disagree? If so, how, what is the bigger selling point?

I kinda stayed out of this to this point because out of ignorance I never had a good understanding of the difference between clone knock-offs and component clubs, and felt the same way up until a couple years ago. Until I actually took the time to try and build foundation to my statements with real fact and found it really hard to justify such in my own mind. I was wrong. You apparently still view them all as one and it is becoming very cloudy to one who used to feel that way how you can justify the HiBore as anything other than a knock-off, same with Cavity Backs.

The only way I could justify it is in knowing that Cleveland has a name to protect, so likely they took the time to assure it met their standards. Unfortunately alot of knock-off companies do not hold the same standards, and it comes at the expense of club makers that likely have far more experience and likely even a better cheaper product, simply because they do not advertise through the PGA. Even though these component dealers likely take more pride in their work and have just as much to protect.

Will I likely ever buy component clubs? Probably not, because of the image that is portrayed as a result of some not so respectable dealers. Although it may likely be at the expense of my wallet and golf game. Am I shallow for doing so? Certainly, but at least I realize this and do not try and justify my shallowness with false facts about how component clubs are inferior to my more expensive product just so I can feel better about myself and my purchase.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

For the Original Poster, one downside I do see in component clubs is availability of the product. To further explain, when my wife started playing, being a left handed women it is very hard to find clubs to demo. She ended up purchasing component woods because components were the only she could find to demo. Unfortunately when she got ready to pick up a 7w and 9w, the place that built them for her was no longer in business, so she was in a position of having to either order online from a company for which she was unfamiliar to get matching clubs, or have non-matching clubs. She loved the clubs, even likely as much as the Callaways she now has, that she picked up when the airlines lost her clubs.

If you do go with Components I would make sure you are dealing with a club builder that has been in business for a while. Simply because you may find you are in a position where they are not easily available. Probably another reason, outside of simply being shallow when it comes to golf clubs, that I prefer buying clubs that are more easily available.

 

[Wildbore]

Please explain how component clubs do not fit into this mix? If using that design feature as your main selling point for the club, is the fact that they put a more reputable name in your eyes what defines the new design ideas for the club? Help spell this out what are the differences you are talking about that separate this from any other component club, or clone as you seem to feel there is no difference. Specifically what did Cleveland do with their HiBore and what do they advertise above the effect the club has with COG or MOI on the Solid Tone? Yet I am sure if you saw them back to back with no introduction you would likely assume the Solid Tone is a nasty knock-off clone of the HiBore. So tell me, which is the better club? Obviously the HiBore, right?

Obviously the Hibore is a better club. Did you read anything I said? If you put them back-to-back with no introduction, I would say they are completely different sizes are colours. It would be easy to judge that neither would be a clone. Looking at them in more detail it becomes more obvious.

Also, you are putting words in my mouth. I have never said or implied that clones and components are the same thing. Theres a huge difference, a component company puts substancial effort into making quality clubs, and they make many original designs. Clones are clubs that have the look of OEMs or another company. I have never used the terms interchangably so stop stating I have.

How is any Cavity back not just a Ping knock-off, I mean the main advertising point is the forgiveness of the cavity back and perimeter weighting. I rarely see much more in the advertisement of most CB's it is by far the top selling point of any CB. Do you disagree? If so, how, what is the bigger selling point?

Do all the cavity backs have the same aesthetics as Ping? For the most part no, thats why they are not clones.

The rest of your post just repeats the same non-sense.

Do you know anything at all about Ralph Maltby?

This honestly is one of the most ill informed posts I have ever read. You are either a troll or an idiot, possibly both.

You must be ill-informed. There are many clones in the Ralph Malty line, as well as the Bob Toski line by Golfworks.

However I refuse to buy clones, be it from Golfworks or some random junk company, simply because I believe taking a design and selling it as ones own is ethically wrong.

It would be nice if we can keep this debate civilized. Lyle, you are only disgracing yourself by making completely baseless allegations that I am a troll and/or idiot. Your desperation is unparralled, you can still preserve your honour by admitting you have posted misinformation.

 

[dave.]

How is any Cavity back not just a Ping knock-off, I mean the main advertising point is the forgiveness of the cavity back and perimeter weighting. I rarely see much more in the advertisement of most CB's it is by far the top selling point of any CB. Do you disagree? If so, how, what is the bigger selling point?

I kinda stayed out of this to this point because out of ignorance I never had a good understanding of the difference between clone knock-offs and component clubs, and felt the same way up until a couple years ago. Until I actually took the time to try and build foundation to my statements with real fact and found it really hard to justify such in my own mind. I was wrong. You apparently still view them all as one and it is becoming very cloudy to one who used to feel that way how you can justify the HiBore as anything other than a knock-off, same with Cavity Backs.

I have now read that several times and I still haven't a clue what point you are trying to make. Hibore and cavity backs knock off? What are you talking about? The previous poster called it nonsense,and to be fair he has a point.Please can you try and explain exactly what you mean.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

Obviously the Hibore is a better club. Did you read anything I said?

See, this is my whole point. What are you basing this on? Yes I read what you said, the only thing you said related to difference in the two was size and color. Although you never gave indication that this influenced the quality of the club. So I guess I should just assume it is better because it is bigger and has a neater color????

My point being you are making snap judgements on the quality of a club while providing no support for your statement. In the same sense your comments regarding Golfworks and Golfsmith made me question whether you understood the difference between a clone and a component club.

Again, I read your previous statement as well as this one and see nothing to support why you feel the HiBore to be a better club outside of the Name of the product. The only other mention is the size and color difference. To me that seems like a shallow way to compare clubs.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

I have now read that several times and I still haven't a clue what point you are trying to make. Hibore and cavity backs knock off? What are you talking about? The previous poster called it nonsense,and to be fair he has a point.Please can you try and explain exactly what you mean.

So you don't agree that the top selling point for most Cavity Backs is based on the forgiveness of the club in relation to the Cavity design and perimeter weighting? And the top selling point of the HiBore are the factors concerning the COG and MOI? My comment was in relation to the comment that I quoted in my post:

And if using one design feature makes a club a clone, then all the companies using bore-thru hosels, composite crowns, titanium faces, weight ports are all clones because they copied someone elses feature. As long as you combine your own ideas and creativity to existing design features, you can still come up with original designs.

It was a sarcastic remark in relation to the fact that if that is what the other manufacturer had in mind, why is it usually barely apparent in the advertising for the product.

Again, I only insinuated they would be considered clones based on Wildbores interpretation. You would think if there other features made such a drastic difference, they would advertise it above what was already stated as advantages by the original designer.

Call me a cynic, but the added features do not seem to appear higher on the list than the original designers intent. Are they a clone? Not in my opinion. Just because the stole an initial good design, they likely still took the time to research the product for the sake of their name. In the same sense, I would hardly consider any of the clubs I see at Golfsmith or Golfworks a clone, as they too took the time to assure they marketed what they felt to be a reliable product, they simply didn't spend millions to advertise their larceny. Unless you believe they stumbled on the CB's with complete ignorance to Pings prior developments.

But I think I already stated my opinion on that, it was the part that was classified under more of the same nonsense.

 

[LyleG]

wildbore

How about some links to these Maltby clones?

I have one of every Maltby head (current models) in my shop and they dont look like any others.

So back it up?

I will even provide the site link to save you some time.

Maltby Heads - The GolfWorks

 

[Eracer]

I'm so confused. I must be an idiot.

 

[Rockford35]

I'm so confused. I must be an idiot.

You're not an idiot. Trust me.

Is this thread still alive? Why?

R35

 

[LyleG]

Is this thread still alive? Why?

R35

Its alive because guys like Wildbore are allowed to post blatantly false information without any consequences.

He say that the Maltby heads are look a likes. I have posted a link to the heads and would like him to back up his claims. Point out the heads that are clones as he calls them.
I sell and play these products because I believe in them whole heartedly and will go to bat for them when I see completely crap info posted.

Maybe I am an idiot for giving a shit, but I stand behind what i believe in.

 

[dave.]

So you don't agree that the top selling point for most Cavity Backs is based on the forgiveness of the club in relation to the Cavity design and perimeter weighting?

No I don't,because its a pointless point of total pointlessness. I still have no idea what you are trying to demonstrate by saying cavity backs are forgiving because they have,er,a cavity back.Pure hyperbole.

It has no bearing on the original thread regarding fake clubs.We then moved onto clones and I agree with Lyle,a clone could be w ell made club using some design features from brand names,that doesn't mean they are poor.But this point you have made is just irrelevant.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

No I don't,because its a pointless point of total pointlessness. I still have no idea what you are trying to demonstrate by saying cavity backs are forgiving because they have,er,a cavity back.Pure hyperbole.

Well, if you view the text of mine that you even quoted in your post you will find that I said "forgiveness of the club in relation to the Cavity design and perimeter weighting?" not "forgiving because they have,er,a cavity back." I think that gave enough detail short of going into a 200 page thesis on cavity back design. As this was really an example in regards to an initial comment that I felt most may be familiar with, and not an attempt to discuss the history of cavity back design.

I agree this seems pointless to me because the it is blatantly obvious to me that the perimeter weighting is the foundation to the forgiveness on shots that are not struck on the sweet spot, and that is further what they advertise. I guess if that is something you disagree with, as you've stated, then it is further pointless to try and convince you otherwise as you have given no real indication what you question. I guess I am just curious why you really feel your Pings are some of the more forgiving clubs you have hit.

As far as how it relates to the topic, I don't see the need to try and summarize the entire thread for your sake when you seem to be of the opinion that what I have said is "Pointless" based on what you have changed and read into my comments and not what I stated.

edit 1 - I guess if you want to spend time in a facetious attempt on only speaking in hyperboles, and not even considering the real material that I mention in determining it to be "Pointless", then I see little need to worry about your real opinion in what I have actually stated or even further support my comments.

 

[dave.]

I was being sarcastic because you have yet to explain of what relevance to the thread is a post stating foregiveness is relative to cavity design and perimeter weighting.I still have no idea what you mean and how this relates to cloning and counterfieting golf equipment.I am not dsiagreeing with you,I just don't knwo what point you are making.I may well agree entirely with you when I know how foregivenss in cavity design relates to cloning.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

I was being sarcastic because you have yet to explain of what relevance to the thread is a post stating foregiveness is relative to cavity design and perimeter weighting.I still have no idea what you mean and how this relates to cloning and counterfieting golf equipment.I am not dsiagreeing with you,I just don't knwo what point you are making.I may well agree entirely with you when I know how foregivenss in cavity design relates to cloning.

Dave, help me out here. Maybe I understand the confusion, or maybe not.

In all sincerity, did you read

How is any Cavity back not just a Ping knock-off, I mean the main advertising point is the forgiveness of the cavity back and perimeter weighting. I rarely see much more in the advertisement of most CB's it is by far the top selling point of any CB. Do you disagree? If so, how, what is the bigger selling point?

from my post, where in fact that was simply a small portion and an example in a fairly large post? Or did you read it from Wildbore's post, in which he broke my single post down into about 5 different comments. That simply being one of the segments he dissected and as you see above. If this is the case, I think I can understand how you would question why I only made that statement in itself, and out of the blue in this thread. But that wasn't the case. It was more of an analogy in regards to his comment and the rest of my statement.

What made me think this to be the case is he posted about 5 days after my post, and you responded immediately after his post. If that is not the case, then I'm not really sure if your asking me how this relates to cloning, or how a cavity back relates to forgiveness. In either case, maybe we just have a different understanding for the words "Cavity back", or "Clone Golf Club". I thought my intention in bringing up "Cavity Back" design and "Forgiveness" was pretty well describe in the initial post and was done because I felt it was truly an example for which most golfers are familiar could relate too.

Then again, it may just be me, as this happened almost a week ago, and I have a hard enough time remembering my train of thought from yesterday, let alone a week ago. But if my initial thoughts about you simply reading the dissected part of my post is not the case, I find it unlikely I could better explain without simply repeating myself.

 

[dave.]

Lol,fair point Tbh,I can't rememebr,I may well have confused myself