Wilson GE 1200 2-PW

My neighbor is moving, and they left a bunch of stuff out at the end of the drive for trash man. These where in a old beat up bag along with some King Kong 1/3/5 woods......

Anyone ever played these? They are in below average condition. Heads are fine, shafts have spots of rust close to hosel on a few clubs and all the grips are beyond use. But might be interesting to regrip and keep around.

They're not good. I hit one at a local range. Junk cast clubs.

Junk. Sorry, not worth the cost of regripping.

I'd cut up the shafts for use as extensions myself.

Thanks for replies, ill donate them

My neighbor is moving, and they left a bunch of stuff out at the end of the drive for trash man. These where in a old beat up bag along with some King Kong 1/3/5 woods......

 

Anyone ever played these? They are in below average condition. Heads are fine, shafts have spots of rust close to hosel on a few clubs and all the grips are beyond use. But might be interesting to regrip and keep around.

There were two versions of these, the original model and the one marked "Radius Sole" on the back. I've played both of them and both were fine, but I preferred the Radius Sole version.

Not sure why anyone would call them "junk cast clubs" unless they feel the same way about the Ping Eye 2. Same era and similar playability. For comparison sake they're two iron heads with similar specs. One is going to play as good (or bad, depending on who is hitting it) as the other.

They have taper tip shafts, so I wouldn't spend that kind of money on a reshaft. If the shafts are ok, then I'd do what I do with anything else from the thrifts and slap on some Karma Tour Velvets for $1.50 apiece.

My neighbor is moving, and they left a bunch of stuff out at the end of the drive for trash man. These where in a old beat up bag along with some King Kong 1/3/5 woods......

 

Anyone ever played these? They are in below average condition. Heads are fine, shafts have spots of rust close to hosel on a few clubs and all the grips are beyond use. But might be interesting to regrip and keep around.

 

There were two versions of these, the original model and the one marked "Radius Sole" on the back. I've played both of them and both were fine, but I preferred the Radius Sole version.

 

Not sure why anyone would call them "junk cast clubs" unless they feel the same way about the Ping Eye 2. Same era and similar playability. For comparison sake they're two iron heads with similar specs. One is going to play as good (or bad, depending on who is hitting it) as the other.

 

They have taper tip shafts, so I wouldn't spend that kind of money on a reshaft. If the shafts are ok, then I'd do what I do with anything else from the thrifts and slap on some Karma Tour Velvets for $1.50 apiece.

Comparing the Wilson Gear Effect iron to the Ping Eye 2 because they are both cavity back's is like comparing a Ford Pinto to a Ferrari GT California because they both have two doors.

My neighbor is moving, and they left a bunch of stuff out at the end of the drive for trash man. These where in a old beat up bag along with some King Kong 1/3/5 woods......

 

Anyone ever played these? They are in below average condition. Heads are fine, shafts have spots of rust close to hosel on a few clubs and all the grips are beyond use. But might be interesting to regrip and keep around.

 

There were two versions of these, the original model and the one marked "Radius Sole" on the back. I've played both of them and both were fine, but I preferred the Radius Sole version.

 

Not sure why anyone would call them "junk cast clubs" unless they feel the same way about the Ping Eye 2. Same era and similar playability. For comparison sake they're two iron heads with similar specs. One is going to play as good (or bad, depending on who is hitting it) as the other.

 

They have taper tip shafts, so I wouldn't spend that kind of money on a reshaft. If the shafts are ok, then I'd do what I do with anything else from the thrifts and slap on some Karma Tour Velvets for $1.50 apiece.

 

Comparing the Wilson Gear Effect iron to the Ping Eye 2 because they are both cavity back's is like comparing a Ford Pinto to a Ferrari GT California because they both have two doors.

If you believe that, it's because you believe the golf ball knows the brand of the club hitting it.

Iron clubs are all about center of gravity location and sole design, and then properly fitted shaft, lie and grip. Brand name, tour usage and snob appeal don't mean anything to the ball.

Hmm. I would have guessed that if there's a big difference in playability between the 1200s and the Eye2s, it would be in the sole. And maybe that's not ever going to amount to such a big difference. Other than that, I'm thinking the heads are going to play pretty similarly. IIRC, Wilson pitched those just below the level of their Staff branded forged blades - and pretty much as a direct response to Ping. Cast, yes. And I'd rather have a set of Dynapowers myself. But that doesn't make them junk.

I think they sold well enough in their day. So much so that they inspired Dunlop to release their equivalent model - the Max 357, another cast, cavity back from a brand famous for their forged blades - and marketed on the strength of its "gear effect".

My neighbor is moving, and they left a bunch of stuff out at the end of the drive for trash man. These where in a old beat up bag along with some King Kong 1/3/5 woods......

 

Anyone ever played these? They are in below average condition. Heads are fine, shafts have spots of rust close to hosel on a few clubs and all the grips are beyond use. But might be interesting to regrip and keep around.

 

There were two versions of these, the original model and the one marked "Radius Sole" on the back. I've played both of them and both were fine, but I preferred the Radius Sole version.

 

Not sure why anyone would call them "junk cast clubs" unless they feel the same way about the Ping Eye 2. Same era and similar playability. For comparison sake they're two iron heads with similar specs. One is going to play as good (or bad, depending on who is hitting it) as the other.

 

They have taper tip shafts, so I wouldn't spend that kind of money on a reshaft. If the shafts are ok, then I'd do what I do with anything else from the thrifts and slap on some Karma Tour Velvets for $1.50 apiece.

 

Comparing the Wilson Gear Effect iron to the Ping Eye 2 because they are both cavity back's is like comparing a Ford Pinto to a Ferrari GT California because they both have two doors.

 

If you believe that, it's because you believe the golf ball knows the brand of the club hitting it.

 

Iron clubs are all about center of gravity location and sole design, and then properly fitted shaft, lie and grip. Brand name, tour usage and snob appeal don't mean anything to the ball.

One is considered one of the greatest cavity back irons ever made, the other wasn’t even good during its time on the market. I know, I owned one and demo’d both. So you can see the parallel to my analogy. And I am not a snob, very, very far from it. I’m just a guy with a sense of humor who tried to make a joke.

My neighbor is moving, and they left a bunch of stuff out at the end of the drive for trash man. These where in a old beat up bag along with some King Kong 1/3/5 woods......

 

Anyone ever played these? They are in below average condition. Heads are fine, shafts have spots of rust close to hosel on a few clubs and all the grips are beyond use. But might be interesting to regrip and keep around.

 

There were two versions of these, the original model and the one marked "Radius Sole" on the back. I've played both of them and both were fine, but I preferred the Radius Sole version.

 

Not sure why anyone would call them "junk cast clubs" unless they feel the same way about the Ping Eye 2. Same era and similar playability. For comparison sake they're two iron heads with similar specs. One is going to play as good (or bad, depending on who is hitting it) as the other.

 

They have taper tip shafts, so I wouldn't spend that kind of money on a reshaft. If the shafts are ok, then I'd do what I do with anything else from the thrifts and slap on some Karma Tour Velvets for $1.50 apiece.

 

Comparing the Wilson Gear Effect iron to the Ping Eye 2 because they are both cavity back's is like comparing a Ford Pinto to a Ferrari GT California because they both have two doors.

 

If you believe that, it's because you believe the golf ball knows the brand of the club hitting it.

 

Iron clubs are all about center of gravity location and sole design, and then properly fitted shaft, lie and grip. Brand name, tour usage and snob appeal don't mean anything to the ball.

 

One is considered one of the greatest cavity back irons ever made, the other wasn't even good during its time on the market. I know, I owned one and demo'd both. So you can see the parallel to my analogy. And I am not a snob, very, very far from it. I'm just a guy with a sense of humor who tried to make a joke.

I too have played both models in question. Not only back when they were on the market, but in recent times as well. I actually preferred the Wilson irons except for the Sand Wedge.

I don't deal in hyperbole. I prefer to deal in science. The actual physical properties of a club head.

https://www.golfworks.com/images/art/MPF_PING.pdf

https://www.golfworks.com/images/art/MPF_WILSON.pdf

The Eye 2 ranks just a bit higher in this case because its center of gravity is a little farther from the hosel than the 1200GE. The 1200's COG is a bit lower than the Ping, which in my opinion is a more important factor in how the club plays. Either way, the physical properties of the Wilson clubhead indicate it would play very well, and for me and thousands of others that proved to be the case.

If it didn't, it could be any number of the usual factors. Shafts, lies and/or grips. Preferred the look or feel of one over the other (which cannot be quantified). More likely, especially with WRXers (who have been around in one form or another long before there was a WRX), is that the "buds" were more approving of the Pings.

Here's something that you decided to edit out that showed up in my email.

"By your reasoning (and let’s use Wilson as an example) Sam Snead Blue Ridge’s are equal in quality to Staff’s because they are both blades. I think if you put both comparisons to a poll in this forum, you’d find most would share my “belief”"

The Snead clubs were store line models and likely didn't have the tolerances the Staff models would have had. However, if one had the opportunity to hand select a set of properly weighted heads and shaft them appropriately, the results between the two would likely be pretty similar.

Of course the Ping irons would rank higher in a poll. Tour usage. Better marketing. None of which matters to the ball at impact.

Regarding the opinions of anyone in this forum (and I'm not referring to this particular section, as most of the folks here "get it" when it comes to equipment), they are so prone to hype that I have to wonder if they know anything about equipment. They actually believe nonsense such as today's stronger lofts are needed due to lower centers of gravity, when if anything COGs are often higher than they were in the recent past. Again, check The Golfworks actual physical measurements for the proof.

Again, check The Golfworks actual physical measurements for the proof.

Again, check The Golfworks actual physical measurements for the proof.

How do I access more of those MPF pdf pages?

https://www.golfwork...-ratings/a/870/

I highly recommend these books, as well. They're not cheap, but if more people would read them they'd be much more informed about buying something that may actually help them, as well as saving themselves thousands of dollars over time spent chasing the latest hype.

https://www.golfwork...book/p/rm9001h/

https://www.golfwork...ce-book/p/gcfp/

The final rating numbers for the MPF and how each category is weighted has been debated in a number of places and will no doubt continue to be debated.

However, what cannot be debated are the measurements of the actual physical properties of the clubheads. They not only allow different models to be compared, they also allow one to compare the clubhead in question to the content provided by the Marketing Department of the clubhead's manufacturer.

Thanks! Very interesting. After looking through the irons MPF ratings I am shocked at how some of the irons that look the most unforgiving are actually ranked really high on the MPF playability scale. Take a look at the MaxFli torque arm irons...WOW!

I am a huge fan of the idea of using the measurements the way Shallowface describes. The combination of different measurements into a final MPF score is certainly debatable, but I accept somewhat beside the point.

The real reservation I have is around some of the measurements themselves. If you look at the measurements of different models' MoI, you'll see some pretty strange things. For instance, the measured MoI of my 1958 Hogan Sabers is higher than any of the Ping i3 models ("blade" or O-size). And the poor, maligned MacGregor Golden Bear measures higher than the Zing. I understand that MoI increases with mass, and both the Sabers and Macs are pretty weighty, but I'm having a hard time accepting that a toe miss will sting less, or fly better, with one of those old blades than any of the Pings.

It's very hard to find any other independent sources of clubhead MoI measurements on irons. But Tom Wishon states that most deep cavity back irons will typically have MoI 2 to 3 times higher than a typical muscleback. There is just no way to reconcile differences on that scale with the data posted by Golfworks.