Send in the Clones
Written: Mar 09 '00
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: It works, it has lasted, it was reasonably priced
Cons: Am I helping to destroy Western civilization by using a clone?
|
|
|
| goodale1's Full Review: Taylor Made Ti Bubble 2 Driver |
I was one of the last kids on my block to get a metal "wood." No, that really isn't true. In fact I bought one of the earliest Taylor Made models in the 80's--but I never liked it, and rarely used it. Until 1994 or so I did all my driving with an Orlimar persimmon driver that I picked out of a bin in the Sunnyvale Muni pro shop in the late-70's for $50. It took me 2-3 years to come to terms with that driver, but once I had done so, it served me well. I was known as a good driver, and was rarely outdriven, even by those with more modern equipment.
I changed in 1994 only because my sister bought me a metal driver for Xmas. It was gold with a black graphite shaft which bulged out at the middle. As with the wooden Orlimar, it took me a few years to learn how to swing this new club. Once I had learned, the results were noticeable, but not stunning. My bad shots were definitely better (it was virtually impossible to duck hook the new club) and my good shots were marginally longer. After another year of use I learned how shape shots with the club and hit it off bare fairway lies. I still like and use the club exclusively.
Most players I meet for the first time in competitions ask me, after a few holes, something to the effect of "So how do you like your Burner?", or, more recently, as the technology is now anything but new, "Do you still like the Burner? Have you tried the Callaway Steelhead, or the Orlimar multi-metal?" (They've gone metallic too--sigh) Well......as I guess you might have guessed, I don't play a "Taylor Made" club, but a "Tour Made." The shaft is not a "bubble shaft" but a "belly shaft." It is not a "Burner" but a "Ruler."
My driver is a clone. There, I've said it, and I'm not ashamed.
It still does the job--when I have the patience and skill to let it do its thing. It still is solid and good looking. I still rarely get outdriven. My sister paid $65 for the club. It has been definitely "value for money."
Do I feel guilty that I and my sister might have infringed upon the intellectual property rights of Taylor Made by buying and using this piece of equipment? No. No more than do I feel guilty about copying a page from a book or magazine that interests me. No more than do I feel guilty about singing a song in a pub in the earlier hours of the morning without recording the number of people present and sending a check to ASCAP. No more than the average Chinese user of Windows 2000 feels guilty about the fact that his copy was copied from the copy that a friend copied from one of his friends.
Why? Three reasons.
Firstly, to me, to call the look and feel of a golf club "intellectual" property is the height of arrogance and/or greed. Secondly, as long as it is clear to the user that a clone is not the real thing, there is no fraud involved. Finally, as anyone who has ever played the game of golf with any degree of seriousness knows, the real incremental value of any new "technology" is minimal.
Tiger Woods would whip me playing my great-grandfather's hickory shafted clubs, even if I played with the most modern equipment. Even though I slavishly play "important" rounds of golf with my "best" clubs and with new Titleists or Maxflis (depending on the phase of the moon), many of my lowest scoring rounds have been with old clubs and old balls.
So.......send in the clones, I say. Take away most of the patent and trademark protection and let the manufacturers of golf equipment compete on quality and price, rather than hype. Will it happen........fat chance......but it's in your hands.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
goodale1
|
|
Member: Rich Goodale
Location: San Jose, California
Reviews written: 32
Trusted by: 1 member
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.