Ping eye 2 vs new ping irons

Found this video and find it interesting and pretty cool figured I'd share it. Fried eggs golf is pretty neat channel on YouTube.

Sweet.

Been looking for a video like this for awhile. Thanks for sharing.

The eye 2 had hot spots. His test found that to be true as well. The difference between the best and worst shots on the G vs eye 2 was 5 vs 14. Yes the eye 2 holds up but the new clubs are still better. That being said, I love the eye 2.

+1 Thanks for the link.

Helps me feel better about not seeing much improvement from my i3 o-sizes

I like the Fried Eggs youtube channel. Very informative in an entertaining kind of approach.

Great video, very cool to see. More testimony to just how good of design the eye 2 truly was. Eliminate all the tricks of modern technology, stronger lofts longer shafts and you have a club head in the eye 2 that clearly competes. . I have a few sets of Ping irons, eye 2+ I3+. S58s and ie1s and I believe overall the ie1 is the best of the bunch. Two reasons and I believe one was eluded to in the video, Consistency, missed shots fly straighter and further with modern technology and I believe with the tuning port in modern Ping designs fitting is better. The eye 2 was a light iron and I sometimes struggled with that and that was a big reason I made the jump to the I3+ and its ability to dial in swing weight, but I guess in the big picture it's nothing lead tape didn't compensate for although it could look ugly. Ping is just a great iron over all models included.

As pingGuy said the eye 2 has got spots, and when you hit it right it's very rewarding. Makes new clubs seem like cheating.

I learned with Ping karsten IIs so for me the eye is very forgiving. Love the modern irons, but for the money the eye 2 is hard to beat. As I tell my brother. It's not the number "on" the club but what club gets you to the green.

I would have liked to see the best and worst of the iblade as well to see the forgiveness factor on miss hits compared to the eye 2.

Cool video though.

I wonder how many older irons like the 845's would also stand up very well in a test like this. I suspect that many would still perform well. A fact the current day manufacturers would not be keen to be widely known.

As long as your swing and impact position is reasonable you can probably hit many irons 20-30 years old and still get comparable performance to the new stuff while using the modern ball.

I follow him on YouTube, very nice reviews, the eye2 were my first set of irons, then moved to the ISI...the iBlades are just solid, the eye2 is just as solid, Ping has always put out vey good equipment...

Next we need him to do an Eye2 comparison... regular cast, BeCu, and maybe an Eye2+ thrown in the mix.

Fun video. Thanks for posting!

Any time a human is hitting balls and comparing numbers there is always strike performance variation factors that come into play. I suspect some of the distance variation shown on the Eye2, the best to worst distance of 14 yards for example, bares that out. I do believe that the G is more consistent across the face, but I'm not so sure the difference is 11 yards worth though.

The other thing that caught my attention was the low spin from the Eye2 and the assumption that the grooves were dull. Actually, the Eye2 has rounded groove edges so they don't bite into the ball aggressively at all. The rounded edges is what got the USGA's panties in a twist and started the row between them and Ping. So wear on the club face won't have much affect on spin on those clubs because the grooves were dull to begin with.

Very interesting video, makes me want to take my Eye 2s out of the basement.

Hot spots in the early 80s....are you kidding me? You're rewarded when you hit the center of the club face. When you miss the center, there's some punishment. Today's irons are more forgiving in that right., especially GI/SGI. That said, I love my set of copper Eye2s, 3/LW. Easy as anything I've hit. Just great all around clubs even by today's standards. Great video BTW.

Claims of hot spots are foolish. I do wonder however if the Eye2 face provides a little spring effect on center strikes though because the face look sort of thin.

This guy deserves a lot of credit for demonstrating that tech advances are not necessarily worth the cash. He's like the Julian Assange of golf world. That being said, I am currently experimenting with eye 2 + becus and love them but distance loss on off center hits is real.

I like when people do this except I never see anyone go the apples to apples route. I wanna see one where they put the exact same shaft, grip, length, loft, lie in different clubheads and show the numbers that way. If there is one I haven't seen it so I stand to be corrected.

Slightly off topic, I have a set of Eye 2s that I love. I also have a set of Zing 2 irons. Anyone else compare the two sets? I haven't been able to take the Zings to the range yet.

The modern Pings he used had a different dot color than the Eye 2s.

Fun video. Thanks for posting!

 

Any time a human is hitting balls and comparing numbers there is always strike performance variation factors that come into play. I suspect some of the distance variation shown on the Eye2, the best to worst distance of 14 yards for example, bares that out. I do believe that the G is more consistent across the face, but I'm not so sure the difference is 11 yards worth though.

 

The other thing that caught my attention was the low spin from the Eye2 and the assumption that the grooves were dull. Actually, the Eye2 has rounded groove edges so they don't bite into the ball aggressively at all. The rounded edges is what got the USGA's panties in a twist and started the row between them and Ping. So wear on the club face won't have much affect on spin on those clubs because the grooves were dull to begin with.

Very sorry, a slight disagreement.

Granted the rounded edges were the excuse for the USGA and Ping to have that fabulous court case, Karsten felt that he was being unfairly targeted by the USGA that was run by Dean Beaman because he had previously been forced to discard a different club for seemijngly similar capricious reasons. This time he chose to fight regardless that he could have conformed with a very minor engineering adjustment of his manufacturing equipment. Karsten was simply pissed off, but may have had good reason because the USGA used a very convoluted means of measuring to disapprove the Pings. That measuring technique seemed to target only the Pings because of the rounded grooves, but Ping needed those rounded grooves to prevent the original square grooves from eating up the golf balls.

As an added point for thought, I have doubts that grooves actually cause spin. I think it more likely that it's the club surface area on the ball that causes spin, thus the fabled honeymoon period. Fact is, I have doubt we can wear out steel from beating on a plastic ball.

Shambles

Wrxer non-clubhos have 2 sets of clubs...their gamer set and a set of eye 2s that they wont sell.

Fun video. Thanks for posting!

 

Any time a human is hitting balls and comparing numbers there is always strike performance variation factors that come into play. I suspect some of the distance variation shown on the Eye2, the best to worst distance of 14 yards for example, bares that out. I do believe that the G is more consistent across the face, but I'm not so sure the difference is 11 yards worth though.

 

The other thing that caught my attention was the low spin from the Eye2 and the assumption that the grooves were dull. Actually, the Eye2 has rounded groove edges so they don't bite into the ball aggressively at all. The rounded edges is what got the USGA's panties in a twist and started the row between them and Ping. So wear on the club face won't have much affect on spin on those clubs because the grooves were dull to begin with.

 

Very sorry, a slight disagreement.

 

Granted the rounded edges were the excuse for the USGA and Ping to have that fabulous court case, Karsten felt that he was being unfairly targeted by the USGA that was run by Dean Beaman because he had previously been forced to discard a different club for seemijngly similar capricious reasons. This time he chose to fight regardless that he could have conformed with a very minor engineering adjustment of his manufacturing equipment. Karsten was simply pissed off, but may have had good reason because the USGA used a very convoluted means of measuring to disapprove the Pings. That measuring technique seemed to target only the Pings because of the rounded grooves, but Ping needed those rounded grooves to prevent the original square grooves from eating up the golf balls.

 

As an added point for thought, I have doubts that grooves actually cause spin. I think it more likely that it's the club surface area on the ball that causes spin, thus the fabled honeymoon period. Fact is, I have doubt we can wear out steel from beating on a plastic ball.

 

 

 

Shambles

I see nothing that you wrote that disagrees with what I wrote. The entire Eye 2 "groove issue" traced back to the radius on the eye 2 grooves and how grooves should be measured. My point in bringing this up was simply to refute claims in the video that the low spin from the Eye 2 was because of "dull" or worn out grooves. The Eye2 grooves were rounded out of the box so wear on the face won't affect that and in fact it may actually result in reducing the radius, not increasing it.

Love my box groove ball shreading Ping eye 2 copy's [Tour model 111's]

Looks like Randy[Fried Egg guy] is on his way to the Master's, John Solheim's personal guest.

Maybe a Ping eye 3 is in the works.

Hopefully they don't make him sing the Turbulator's rap. lol

Wrxer non-clubhos have 2 sets of clubs...their gamer set and a set of eye 2s that they wont sell.

Agreed!

The Eye 2's were obviously revolutionary. I still have the set in the basement....... :)

But If I have one criticism of them it is this. The short irons hit the ball REALLY high, even for their actual loft. The long irons hit the ball fairly high for their era, but not high by todays standards. Therefore if you compared them to say 1200's or even Ping G I think you would find that the long irons don't go as high as modern clubs and the short irons go too high. With modern tech they have figured out how to do just the opposite.

This is just my experience, YMMV, but they are still worthy clubs and I respect anyone who still plays them.

I would have liked to see the best and worst of the iblade as well to see the forgiveness factor on miss hits compared to the eye 2.

Cool video though.

I wonder how many older irons like the 845's would also stand up very well in a test like this. I suspect that many would still perform well. A fact the current day manufacturers would not be keen to be widely known.

As long as your swing and impact position is reasonable you can probably hit many irons 20-30 years old and still get comparable performance to the new stuff while using the modern ball.

I actually have a full set of 845's 1-sw I just retired, When I purchased them every single guy at my club had a set of Eye 2's and I just wanted to be a little different. I played the 845's for years and years. After spending a bunch of time fishing I am back to golf again and starting playing with my old set ( 845's & 905R etc) this year. I upgraded equipment last month and I am very happy I did.

The main difference between my old 845's and my new Ping i200 is a miss on the Pings goes about as far a sweet spot hit, it may not look as pretty but it still goes a long way and in the general direction I was aimed.

On a good swing and loft for loft the 845'S and I200's perform about the same. For a very good ball striker newer irons really really don't help much, but if you struggle to find the center any newer tech irons will be very helpful.

Now driver tech....as good as a 905r is, the new stuff is amazing.

That being said my 845's will only be for sale at my estate sale, too many great shots and memories to even think about letting them go. Also they are only worth about $50

:)

Pretty sure I'll never get rid of my eye 2 BeCu's, probably will give them to my kid someday

One downside of Eye2 or Eye2+ irons is the negative bounce in the long irons. The bounce increases as you move through the set, but it's not until you get to the 5 iron that you get to 0° bounce.

I agree with dlygrisse's comment about trajectory, the Eye2+ hit the ball absurdly high. I hit the ball fairly high normally, these only added to that. Interestingly, though, they also do so with reduced spin. I had previously been having problems with MS-11s, too much spin for the higher trajectory, and was able to play in the wind with the Eye2+, even with the increased trajectory I got from them.

Said trajectory increase is a bit of a problem for the PW, though. I wound up with a larger than normal gap between 9i and PW.

All that said, I have very little interest in unloading my set. I played them fairly often last year, after largely not touching them for a year or two.

They are simply the best irons ever made.

I think above all they give confidence. You know they are well made, they are the ultimate what you see is what you get iron.

Nowadays they are not overly big compared to many irons and I prefer the more traditional loft gapping.

Stiff though it is, there is something about the ZZ Lite shaft that just works for a wide range of players.

Currently using Eye2+ 5,6,7,8,9,PW,SW and an Eye2 original SW as well as an Eye2 putter.

For some reason to me they always feel better with a Lamkin Crossline or Tour Velvet grip as opposed to a wrap grip.

I got an Eye 2+ SW that'll shred the living s*** out of balls. It spins more today, than any wedge I've hit in the last 20yrs.