SPECIAL TEST: ORIGINAL DRIVERS vs. THE BEST COPIES
One of golf’s most persistent rumors, one I’ve heard for years, is those clubs which “resemble” or imitate the name brand models made by the major equipment manufacturers perform at least as well as the more expensive originals.
As the rumor goes, these “clones” not only have similar performance but of course can save the savvy buyer lots of money, sometimes over half the manufacturer’s list price for the well known “name” club.
So we at Rankmark decided to devise a statistically valid test to prove or disprove this rumor… on the same order as the “Myth Busters” television program.
The amateur golfers participating, our testers, were divided into two groups according to handicap with the first group |
 |
being those between 2 and 10 handicap and the second with handicaps from 11 to 22.
We then selected four of the top drivers on the market today: |
And finally we picked four clones or imitators, one for each of the name brand drivers giving us a total of eight drivers for the test.
The procedure was for each tester to hit each of the eight drivers until comfortable with the club and then award points from one to eight with eight being the best and one being the worst. The lowest any driver received was a 3, from one tester.
The results of this user preference testing were as follows: |
 |
Group One (2 to 10 Handicap)
• Callaway Fusion FT-3: 115 Points - Clone: 84 Points
• Cleveland Hi-Bore: 110 Points - Clone: 67 Points
• Nike SasQuatch 460: 117 Points - Clone: 87 Points
• TaylorMade r7: 108 Points - Clone: 66 Points
Group Two (11 to 22 Handicap)
• Callaway Fusion FT-3: 136 Points - Clone: 116 Points
• Cleveland Hi-Bore: 134 Points - Clone: 86 Points
• Nike SasQuatch 460: 138 Points - Clone: 113 Points
• TaylorMade r7: 130 Points - Clone: 103 Points
The results overall are consistent between the two groups of testers and as with all our testing the results have a ± 5% error.
 |
Further, due to the highly placed finishes by the name brand drivers each has been awarded a Rankmark “Best of the Best” certificate for 2007.
But the real question is how do these results translate into information the average golfer can use when purchasing his or her next driver?
|
Simply put, it is evident in each instance the testers of both groups preferred the name brand clubs by a substantial margin compared their respective clones.
Support for that conclusion comes from analyzing the distance measurement of hundreds of drives hit by the testers and reported according to the average distance achieved by the brand name driver. |
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
Overall the conclusion is that in addition to a lower price these clones of the top selling drivers also have a markedly lower consumer preference and performance.
Now that you have seen the results of our test please go out and buy the driver you like best and as Ely Callaway used to say, “Please Enjoy the Game.”
If you would like more information about our testing and other consumer preference tests we conduct please visit www.rankmark.com.
I remain,
Charlie Mandel
CEO, Rankmark
Click
to Subscribe to the Rankmark
Newsletter. 
