I'm considering getting a new set of golf clubs. I've played off and on for the past 20 years, more off than on lately; but I'm really wanting to get back into the game. Once upon a time I was a mid 70s golfer, but now I'm probably in the mid 80s until I can get my short game back in order. I have a fundamentally sound swing, but have found that I've been hitting my irons "thin" lately. Add that to the fact that they're about 10-15 years old, and I feel like it is time to get a new set. I went to the local Golfsmith and test-hit some Callaway, Mizuno and Nike clubs. I was hitting all of them really well, much better than the Callaway knockoffs that I'm currently hitting. The clubs I liked the best where the Nike VR Pro Cavity clubs, but they were $699 at Golfsmith, plus any costs for customizing the clubs. I'm 6'4" and have a 36.5" distance from my wrist to the ground. The guy at Golfsmith said I should get a .5" longer shaft, midsize grips and stiff flex. I found the clubs for $450 at Amazon, and it gave me the option of getting stiff flex, but not the longer shafts. I then went to gigagolf and found that I could get a set of clones (not Nike, but Callaway which I'd be fine with) for ~$160. They will let me customize the shaft length and stiffness, has a good return warranty, etc. Are clones really the same? I always have a thought in the back of my mind that I'm not hitting my current set as well because they're clones, but I have no empirical evidence of this. I tried searching online, but I found it hard to find non-biased evidence either way. Help me out Lounge!
I didn't find the right solution from the internet.
Promotional Marketing Example