Clones vs real deal.

I read this article on Rankmark.com about a test between the best clones of the original and the original. I find the results hard to believe. The distance lost with the clones seems a little drastic. I have hit clones and did not lose 50 yards off my drives. I have lost respect for rankmarks tests after these results.

Group One (2 to 10 Handicap) using brand name clubs that hit drives an average of:
• 255 Yards -- with the clone averaged 202 Yards
• 240 Yards -- with the clone averaged 193 Yards
• 235 Yards -- with the clone averaged 200 Yards
• 220 Yards -- with the clone averaged 190 Yards

Group Two (11 to 22 Handicap) using brand name clubs that hit drives an average of:
• 240 Yards -- with the clone averaged 225 Yards
• 225 Yards -- with the clone averaged 205 Yards
• 205 Yards -- with the clone averaged 190 Yards
• 190 Yards -- with the clone averaged 175-180 Yards

What do you guys think?
Here is a link to the full article.
RANKMARK - Providing Golf Data Worldwide

__________________
"You've just one problem. You stand too close to the ball after you've hit it." -Sam Snead

"Golf tips are like aspirin. One may do you good, but if you swallow the whole bottle you will be lucky to survive." -Harvey Penick

"I hit two of my best balls today......I stepped on a rake ".

Yeah I think money has taken over that site . I think some of these sites start out with honest intentions but the almighty doller has alot of influence. That sucks because I used to look forward to the test results.

There's a classic quote from educational research (no doubt from other fields of research too); If you think you know what you expect to find, nine times out of ten, you'll find it

There is no indication in the article that the tests were blind, and if they weren't, the testers knew whether they were playing clones or name brand clubs. This knowledge would be expected to create a placebo effect and to alter the outcome. Plenty of players want to believe that name brand clubs are better, because that belief validates the spending that they've done. Nobody who has dropped thousands on equipment wants to be told that the clones are just as good. So if the tests weren't blind, and preferably double-blind (the people running the test didn't know who was hitting what), the results are worthless.

Todd

__________________
Todd
Philadelphia, PA
USA

The reason the pro tells you to keep your head down is so you can't see him laughing. ~Phyllis Diller

Strongly disagree with the data. I am a 10 Handicapper and recently just bought my first clone driver (prior I used Taylor Made and Adams drivers). It is a square driver (FTI Final) and hits great. I have a big group of guys that I play with every weekend and they have the expensive drivers and get out driven by me with the clone. For me to believe that the clones are not as good I would have to see data from Iron Byron using these clubs vice people. Even though I have clone driver my irons are Ping I3 Blades (maroon 5deg upright) and I love them.

I also disagree.

Now, unless the 'best' clones were factory rejects (ie dead faced, interior weighting problems, etc) there's no way they're that much shorter.

Now, other things to consider are:

Were the measured lofts the same?
Same shafts?
Same grips?
Same grip sizes?
Same spine/flo orientation?
Same swingweight/MOI's?

If the answer is no to any of the above, then the clubs are not the 'same'.

The knock on clones is that 1) they're trying to get rich off the hard work of the OEMs, and 2) their tolerances are wider (more likely to be out of spec).

I like components, myself.

__________________
True Length Technology Fitter - www.truelengthtechnology.com
It's live! - www.ShipShapeClubs.com
PCS Class 'A' Clubfitter

A new highlight: Golfing the home course on Christmas Day.

I say it too often: If it's golf club shaped, you can play with it.

For the record, I'm a club doctor, not a swing doctor.