We have launched our new enhanced Editor. There is an overview and tutorial Here.

I-500s; after using them for a while, anybody else loathe them ?

123578
8

Comments

  • matracy68matracy68 Fayetteville, NC 298WRX Points: 89Members Posts: 298
    Joined:  #122

    Perhaps those that dont like the clubs didn’t get a proper fitting. Just a thought. It seems that when you read these click bait types of threads that some just buy clubs because of a name and then want a specific shaft because Pro Golfer A is using it rather than looking at the numbers during fitting. I like mine. I have good days on the course and bad days. It is the Indian, not the arrow. I think the point is some people like them and others don’t. Good for both parties. My distance with the longer irons is better which makes me happy and caused me to have to buy a new hybrid (G410 3 iron) which is my new favorite club. I tried the 210’s with the 500’s and let Trackman tell me what was better for my swing. The numbers told me to do the 500’s so that is what I did. The 210 felt a lot better to me but I wanted performance over feel so that is why I did what I did. That was my decision and I couldn’t be happier. Just my two cents.

    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • dbleagdbleag  2909WRX Points: 167Members Posts: 2,909
    Joined:  #124

    I have a friend who is a fitter for PING, as well as a good/strong player.

    He swears by the G700's for his 4-5-6 irons, then switches to i200's for 7-8, then iBlade's for 9-W, then Glide 2.0's for his other wedges.

    He can play any of the PING models, but says he gets the best use of their technology with the above setup.

    We all should build our bags based on what works best for us, not others. Duh.

    Posted:
  • 1Mordrid11Mordrid1  751WRX Points: 152Members Posts: 751
    Joined:  #125

    On -, @dbleag said:

    I have a friend who is a fitter for PING, as well as a good/strong player.

    He swears by the G700's for his 4-5-6 irons, then switches to i200's for 7-8, then iBlade's for 9-W, then Glide 2.0's for his other wedges.

    He can play any of the PING models, but says he gets the best use of their technology with the above setup.

    We all should build our bags based on what works best for us, not others. Duh.

    I would think he has some interesting specs for that combo, because stock lofts and swing weights for that combo would be all over the place. Gapping seems like it would be a nightmare. But whatever works.

    Posted:
    WITB

    PXG  0811x Oban Tour Limited 04
    Callaway Rogue 4 wood w/ Oban Kiyoshi White 4 65g
    PXG 0317 19 Hybrid Fujikura Pro 2.0 s
    Srixon U65 20° Miyazaki Kaula 7 s
    PXG 0211 irons 5-G True Temper Elevate 95 S (1°flat 1°weak D4)
    PING Glide 3.0 TS 56/ KBS Hi-Rev 2.0 115
    PING Glide 3.0 SS 60/KBS Hi-Rev 2.0 115
    PXG Mustang 365g single bend
    Snell MTB Black
  • 1Mordrid11Mordrid1  751WRX Points: 152Members Posts: 751
    Joined:  #126

    On -, @torbill said:

    I agree with you guys, and some of the complaints about this iron continue to be a mystery to me.

    Sound and feel are personal and subjective things. Personally, I think that these clubs sound and feel great, so long as I hit them well. But that’s just me. And in any event, sound and feel are secondary to me. Most important is performance, and these clubs have it. Second in importance is look at address. I grew up with true blades, and I have always loved the clean look. I played game improvement clubs for many years, but never liked the look. With the i500 I have found the clean look of a true blade and a lot of forgiveness, so that on a mishit they go reasonably well and they don't loosen my dental fillings like the old musclebacks.

    _ I would argue that the other complaint - excessive dispersion - is either a myth or a cover-up for bad contact._ Dispersion problems come from contact problems, not club problems. In my view it is ridiculous to assert that a consistent strike from this club, or any other club that was ever invented, results in inconsistent performance. I was trained as a mechanical engineer. Would somebody please explain to me how, by the laws of physics, two bodies that do not vary in their physical properties from shot to shot can *possibly* vary in performance if the input is the same? Such claims are surely a figment of the imagination or an excuse for inconsistent contact. It is one thing to not like the performance of this club under varying ground conditions that we might encounter during a round of golf. It is another thing to complain about something that, by my understanding of the laws of physics, is physically impossible. Getting fliers off a tee on a par 3? Come on...

    I find this argument laughable as well.
    What people do not understand is that with the new "lower spin = distance" philosophy and club design, what has happened is that it puts some people much closer to the line of their spin being too low. So a slight miss-hit could potentially drop them below that line. When it drops too low, especially with higher swing speeds, then you can get a flier. But people blame the club, rather than the contact because their previous set did not exhibit this. This is why "forgiveness" is such a subjective term.

    If clubs were capable of these mythical fliers on perfectly struck shots then none of them would ever pass the COR tests.

    Posted:
    WITB

    PXG  0811x Oban Tour Limited 04
    Callaway Rogue 4 wood w/ Oban Kiyoshi White 4 65g
    PXG 0317 19 Hybrid Fujikura Pro 2.0 s
    Srixon U65 20° Miyazaki Kaula 7 s
    PXG 0211 irons 5-G True Temper Elevate 95 S (1°flat 1°weak D4)
    PING Glide 3.0 TS 56/ KBS Hi-Rev 2.0 115
    PING Glide 3.0 SS 60/KBS Hi-Rev 2.0 115
    PXG Mustang 365g single bend
    Snell MTB Black
  • jwb10jwb10 Major Winner Mars 1034WRX Points: 150Members Posts: 1,034
    Joined:  #127

    On -, @tagermo said:

    I loathe that I didn't buy these Ping I-500's sooner. For me they are fantastic irons, long & high with plenty of forgiveness and they feel a lot better than my previous Titliest AP-3's.

    On -, @tagermo said:

    I loathe that I didn't buy these Ping I-500's sooner. For me they are fantastic irons, long & high with plenty of forgiveness and they feel a lot better than my previous Titliest AP-3's.

    Excellent

    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • jwb10jwb10 Major Winner Mars 1034WRX Points: 150Members Posts: 1,034
    Joined:  edited Jun 30, 2019 1:35am #128

    On -, @matracy68 said:

    Perhaps those that dont like the clubs didn’t get a proper fitting. Just a thought. It seems that when you read these click bait types of threads that some just buy clubs because of a name and then want a specific shaft because Pro Golfer A is using it rather than looking at the numbers during fitting. I like mine. I have good days on the course and bad days. It is the Indian, not the arrow. I think the point is some people like them and others don’t. Good for both parties. My distance with the longer irons is better which makes me happy and caused me to have to buy a new hybrid (G410 3 iron) which is my new favorite club. I tried the 210’s with the 500’s and let Trackman tell me what was better for my swing. The numbers told me to do the 500’s so that is what I did. The 210 felt a lot better to me but I wanted performance over feel so that is why I did what I did. That was my decision and I couldn’t be happier. Just my two cents.

    Good for you. I was fit and I-500s were awful once they left the simulator. Another reason NEVER to buy w/o a test drive. And the reason there are so many golf clubs and companies is that people have different preferences, For me, the i-210s have way more feel and performance. So in this case it was the arrow

    Posted:
  • jwb10jwb10 Major Winner Mars 1034WRX Points: 150Members Posts: 1,034
    Joined:  #129

    On -, @torbill said:

    I agree with you guys, and some of the complaints about this iron continue to be a mystery to me.

    Sound and feel are personal and subjective things. Personally, I think that these clubs sound and feel great, so long as I hit them well. But that’s just me. And in any event, sound and feel are secondary to me. Most important is performance, and these clubs have it. Second in importance is look at address. I grew up with true blades, and I have always loved the clean look. I played game improvement clubs for many years, but never liked the look. With the i500 I have found the clean look of a true blade and a lot of forgiveness, so that on a mishit they go reasonably well and they don't loosen my dental fillings like the old musclebacks.

    I would argue that the other complaint - excessive dispersion - is either a myth or a cover-up for bad contact. Dispersion problems come from contact problems, not club problems. In my view it is ridiculous to assert that a consistent strike from this club, or any other club that was ever invented, results in inconsistent performance. I was trained as a mechanical engineer. Would somebody please explain to me how, by the laws of physics, two bodies that do not vary in their physical properties from shot to shot can possibly vary in performance if the input is the same? Such claims are surely a figment of the imagination or an excuse for inconsistent contact. It is one thing to not like the performance of this club under varying ground conditions that we might encounter during a round of golf. It is another thing to complain about something that, by my understanding of the laws of physics, is physically impossible. Getting fliers off a tee on a par 3? Come on...

    Again, opinions are like, everyone has one. Physics works well in the lab, with every factor equal. It was not a figment that the I-500s sucked. **** straight fact, evidenced by results. And since switching to I-210s the issues of excessive dispersion disappeared. Same swing, way better results. So your thesis, at least for me, is provably incorrect. Could it be the club? Yup..and all of the others here reporting the same problems are not ALL having "contact" problems. They appear to be having CLUB problems. But I didn't change my swing to fit the clubs..LOL

    Posted:
  • torbilltorbill  368WRX Points: 242Members Posts: 368
    Joined:  #130

    On -, @1Mordrid1 said:

    On -, @torbill said:

    I agree with you guys, and some of the complaints about this iron continue to be a mystery to me.

    Sound and feel are personal and subjective things. Personally, I think that these clubs sound and feel great, so long as I hit them well. But that’s just me. And in any event, sound and feel are secondary to me. Most important is performance, and these clubs have it. Second in importance is look at address. I grew up with true blades, and I have always loved the clean look. I played game improvement clubs for many years, but never liked the look. With the i500 I have found the clean look of a true blade and a lot of forgiveness, so that on a mishit they go reasonably well and they don't loosen my dental fillings like the old musclebacks.

    _ I would argue that the other complaint - excessive dispersion - is either a myth or a cover-up for bad contact._ Dispersion problems come from contact problems, not club problems. In my view it is ridiculous to assert that a consistent strike from this club, or any other club that was ever invented, results in inconsistent performance. I was trained as a mechanical engineer. Would somebody please explain to me how, by the laws of physics, two bodies that do not vary in their physical properties from shot to shot can *possibly* vary in performance if the input is the same? Such claims are surely a figment of the imagination or an excuse for inconsistent contact. It is one thing to not like the performance of this club under varying ground conditions that we might encounter during a round of golf. It is another thing to complain about something that, by my understanding of the laws of physics, is physically impossible. Getting fliers off a tee on a par 3? Come on...

    I find this argument laughable as well.
    What people do not understand is that with the new "lower spin = distance" philosophy and club design, what has happened is that it puts some people much closer to the line of their spin being too low. So a slight miss-hit could potentially drop them below that line. When it drops too low, especially with higher swing speeds, then you can get a flier. But people blame the club, rather than the contact because their previous set did not exhibit this. This is why "forgiveness" is such a subjective term.

    If clubs were capable of these mythical fliers on perfectly struck shots then none of them would ever pass the COR tests.

    Here is some measured spin data:

    https://www.milesofgolf.com/ping-i210-i500-iron-review/

    Feel free to provide any published spin data of your choice.

    Readers can decide for themselves if a spin rate that is 10% less than the iBlade and 5% less than the i210 can possibly tip a swing of any speed, fast or slow, into the consistency abyss that lives in your imagination.

    Posted:
  • jwb10jwb10 Major Winner Mars 1034WRX Points: 150Members Posts: 1,034
    Joined:  #131

    On -, @torbill said:

    On -, @1Mordrid1 said:

    On -, @torbill said:

    I agree with you guys, and some of the complaints about this iron continue to be a mystery to me.

    Sound and feel are personal and subjective things. Personally, I think that these clubs sound and feel great, so long as I hit them well. But that’s just me. And in any event, sound and feel are secondary to me. Most important is performance, and these clubs have it. Second in importance is look at address. I grew up with true blades, and I have always loved the clean look. I played game improvement clubs for many years, but never liked the look. With the i500 I have found the clean look of a true blade and a lot of forgiveness, so that on a mishit they go reasonably well and they don't loosen my dental fillings like the old musclebacks.

    _ I would argue that the other complaint - excessive dispersion - is either a myth or a cover-up for bad contact._ Dispersion problems come from contact problems, not club problems. In my view it is ridiculous to assert that a consistent strike from this club, or any other club that was ever invented, results in inconsistent performance. I was trained as a mechanical engineer. Would somebody please explain to me how, by the laws of physics, two bodies that do not vary in their physical properties from shot to shot can *possibly* vary in performance if the input is the same? Such claims are surely a figment of the imagination or an excuse for inconsistent contact. It is one thing to not like the performance of this club under varying ground conditions that we might encounter during a round of golf. It is another thing to complain about something that, by my understanding of the laws of physics, is physically impossible. Getting fliers off a tee on a par 3? Come on...

    I find this argument laughable as well.
    What people do not understand is that with the new "lower spin = distance" philosophy and club design, what has happened is that it puts some people much closer to the line of their spin being too low. So a slight miss-hit could potentially drop them below that line. When it drops too low, especially with higher swing speeds, then you can get a flier. But people blame the club, rather than the contact because their previous set did not exhibit this. This is why "forgiveness" is such a subjective term.

    If clubs were capable of these mythical fliers on perfectly struck shots then none of them would ever pass the COR tests.

    Here is some measured spin data:

    https://www.milesofgolf.com/ping-i210-i500-iron-review/

    Feel free to provide any published spin data of your choice.

    Readers can decide for themselves if a spin rate that is 10% less than the iBlade and 5% less than the i210 can possibly tip a swing of any speed, fast or slow, into the consistency abyss that lives in your imagination.

    VCOR= flying clank

    Posted:
  • matracy68matracy68 Fayetteville, NC 298WRX Points: 89Members Posts: 298
    Joined:  #132

    On -, @jwb10 said:

    On -, @matracy68 said:

    Perhaps those that dont like the clubs didn’t get a proper fitting. Just a thought. It seems that when you read these click bait types of threads that some just buy clubs because of a name and then want a specific shaft because Pro Golfer A is using it rather than looking at the numbers during fitting. I like mine. I have good days on the course and bad days. It is the Indian, not the arrow. I think the point is some people like them and others don’t. Good for both parties. My distance with the longer irons is better which makes me happy and caused me to have to buy a new hybrid (G410 3 iron) which is my new favorite club. I tried the 210’s with the 500’s and let Trackman tell me what was better for my swing. The numbers told me to do the 500’s so that is what I did. The 210 felt a lot better to me but I wanted performance over feel so that is why I did what I did. That was my decision and I couldn’t be happier. Just my two cents.

    Good for you. I was fit and I-500s were awful once they left the simulator. Another reason NEVER to buy w/o a test drive. And the reason there are so many golf clubs and companies is that people have different preferences, For me, the i-210s have way more feel and performance. So in this case it was the arrow

    For the record, I was fit outside with a Trackman.

    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • 1Mordrid11Mordrid1  751WRX Points: 152Members Posts: 751
    Joined:  #133

    On -, @torbill said:

    On -, @1Mordrid1 said:

    On -, @torbill said:

    I agree with you guys, and some of the complaints about this iron continue to be a mystery to me.

    Sound and feel are personal and subjective things. Personally, I think that these clubs sound and feel great, so long as I hit them well. But that’s just me. And in any event, sound and feel are secondary to me. Most important is performance, and these clubs have it. Second in importance is look at address. I grew up with true blades, and I have always loved the clean look. I played game improvement clubs for many years, but never liked the look. With the i500 I have found the clean look of a true blade and a lot of forgiveness, so that on a mishit they go reasonably well and they don't loosen my dental fillings like the old musclebacks.

    _ I would argue that the other complaint - excessive dispersion - is either a myth or a cover-up for bad contact._ Dispersion problems come from contact problems, not club problems. In my view it is ridiculous to assert that a consistent strike from this club, or any other club that was ever invented, results in inconsistent performance. I was trained as a mechanical engineer. Would somebody please explain to me how, by the laws of physics, two bodies that do not vary in their physical properties from shot to shot can *possibly* vary in performance if the input is the same? Such claims are surely a figment of the imagination or an excuse for inconsistent contact. It is one thing to not like the performance of this club under varying ground conditions that we might encounter during a round of golf. It is another thing to complain about something that, by my understanding of the laws of physics, is physically impossible. Getting fliers off a tee on a par 3? Come on...

    I find this argument laughable as well.
    What people do not understand is that with the new "lower spin = distance" philosophy and club design, what has happened is that it puts some people much closer to the line of their spin being too low. So a slight miss-hit could potentially drop them below that line. When it drops too low, especially with higher swing speeds, then you can get a flier. But people blame the club, rather than the contact because their previous set did not exhibit this. This is why "forgiveness" is such a subjective term.

    If clubs were capable of these mythical fliers on perfectly struck shots then none of them would ever pass the COR tests.

    Here is some measured spin data:

    https://www.milesofgolf.com/ping-i210-i500-iron-review/

    Feel free to provide any published spin data of your choice.

    Readers can decide for themselves if a spin rate that is 10% less than the iBlade and 5% less than the i210 can possibly tip a swing of any speed, fast or slow, into the consistency abyss that lives in your imagination.

    So I state that the random fairway "fliers" people are talking about are strike related. So you post results of several different irons with data from good or solid strikes. If anything you are making my point. Good strikes should and did yield similar results in your example. Bad strikes however will not always provide symmetrical results across different club types .

    Why has nobody ever been able to "recreate" these fliers on a launch monitor. Because the data does not lie. Generally if you get an outlier on a launch monitor that goes 20 yards further than normal, you can usually look at the data and see a ridiculously low spin number. So if there is a huge disparity in the spin number between strikes, how is that not strike related? Or are we now to believe that club manufacturers are now making clubs with inconsistent spin from the sweet spot?

    Posted:
    WITB

    PXG  0811x Oban Tour Limited 04
    Callaway Rogue 4 wood w/ Oban Kiyoshi White 4 65g
    PXG 0317 19 Hybrid Fujikura Pro 2.0 s
    Srixon U65 20° Miyazaki Kaula 7 s
    PXG 0211 irons 5-G True Temper Elevate 95 S (1°flat 1°weak D4)
    PING Glide 3.0 TS 56/ KBS Hi-Rev 2.0 115
    PING Glide 3.0 SS 60/KBS Hi-Rev 2.0 115
    PXG Mustang 365g single bend
    Snell MTB Black
  • Sonja HenieSonja Henie  204WRX Points: 70Members Posts: 204
    Joined:  #134

    I'm debating between i210s and i500s. I hated the G400 Crossover though. Whenever I hit the ball high on the face, even if dead center, it would float for about 100 yards with zero spin and just crash to the earth as if it got shot out of the air. Other times I hit it great, but it was that miss that made me sell it. Am I in for more of that with the i500s?

    Posted:

    Ping G400 Max, Hzrdus Black 6.5
    Ping G400 3 Wood 14.5*
    Ping G400 3H 19* or Srixon ZU65 19*
    Srixon Z545 (4-5), Srixon Z765 (6-7), Srixon Z945 (8-PW)
    Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth 52 & 58
    Odyssey O-Works 7S
    Srixon Z Star XV

  • 1Mordrid11Mordrid1  751WRX Points: 152Members Posts: 751
    Joined:  #135

    On -, @Sonja Henie said:

    I'm debating between i210s and i500s. I hated the G400 Crossover though. Whenever I hit the ball high on the face, even if dead center, it would float for about 100 yards with zero spin and just crash to the earth as if it got shot out of the air. Other times I hit it great, but it was that miss that made me sell it. Am I in for more of that with the i500s?

    If low spin is already an issue for you in other irons, then I would stay away from the i500's, because from what I have seen people on the lower end of spin seem to have more issues with distance control with the i500's than higher spin players.

    Posted:
    WITB

    PXG  0811x Oban Tour Limited 04
    Callaway Rogue 4 wood w/ Oban Kiyoshi White 4 65g
    PXG 0317 19 Hybrid Fujikura Pro 2.0 s
    Srixon U65 20° Miyazaki Kaula 7 s
    PXG 0211 irons 5-G True Temper Elevate 95 S (1°flat 1°weak D4)
    PING Glide 3.0 TS 56/ KBS Hi-Rev 2.0 115
    PING Glide 3.0 SS 60/KBS Hi-Rev 2.0 115
    PXG Mustang 365g single bend
    Snell MTB Black
  • TapsTaps Helsinki 1WRX Points: 3Members Posts: 1
    Joined:  #136

    I bought the i-500 (3-GW) last August and had very mixed feelings. I absolutely loved the 3-5 irons, 6-7 were ok, but could not hit/trust the 8, 9, PW, UW at all. I came to the conclusion the shafts did not fit me (my swing had changed again, after the fitting), I had the Project X LZ 6.0.
    This Spring I bought the i-210 (4-PW) with the Modus tour S 105 shafts, which suit me better. I added i-500 3 iron with the modus shaft to the set later. I love that club.
    If I could resemble my set again, I would go with the i-500 3-6 irons and i-210 7-PW, and keep the fantastic Glide Forged wedges 50, 54 and 58 I have.
    As for the difference in forgiveness between the -500 and i-210, I really can not say one way of the other, both were surprisingly easy to play.

    Posted:
  • Sonja HenieSonja Henie  204WRX Points: 70Members Posts: 204
    Joined:  #137

    On -, @1Mordrid1 said:

    On -, @Sonja Henie said:

    I'm debating between i210s and i500s. I hated the G400 Crossover though. Whenever I hit the ball high on the face, even if dead center, it would float for about 100 yards with zero spin and just crash to the earth as if it got shot out of the air. Other times I hit it great, but it was that miss that made me sell it. Am I in for more of that with the i500s?

    If low spin is already an issue for you in other irons, then I would stay away from the i500's, because from what I have seen people on the lower end of spin seem to have more issues with distance control with the i500's than higher spin players.

    Thanks for the info. I think I generate enough spin for that not to be an issue. I'm going to buy a used set of i500s from a place that has a 30-day test period and will report back in a few weeks about my experience with them.

    Posted:

    Ping G400 Max, Hzrdus Black 6.5
    Ping G400 3 Wood 14.5*
    Ping G400 3H 19* or Srixon ZU65 19*
    Srixon Z545 (4-5), Srixon Z765 (6-7), Srixon Z945 (8-PW)
    Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth 52 & 58
    Odyssey O-Works 7S
    Srixon Z Star XV

  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • matchavezmatchavez Aotearoa New Zealand 4286WRX Points: 373Unregistered Posts: 4,286
    Joined:  #138

    I find it astonishing there's so much polarity in the discussion. A few random things, since I have only ever owned the 4-iron...

    People talking about dispersion... even a robot has a dispersion pattern, obviously. Also, even Jertson said that the dispersion pattern was wider -- in that it equaled testing for equivalent longer clubs. I think his example was the 7-iron having the same dispersion as an i-series 6-iron at the same speed, because it was achieving those distances. Fair enough, really.

    Feel... ah feel. I've hit some clunkers with my 4-iron. It feels like you nearly broke your club. In reality, you just jumped on the edge of a trampoline... not ideal, but it still bounced and hopefully you didn't fly off. I've found that if you do middle the club, it's fairly consistent. You can also really go after it and get a bomb out of it, but you have to hit it centre. If you don't, well, your hands will feel it.

    Front to back isn't the best because you're using a hollow head - that's the trade off. If you can hit yourself some blades, you won't have that issue, and you won't have the fun extra distance. That's neither good nor bad; it's an informed choice. It really surprises me that there is so much abuse towards these clubs by a very vocal minority. They're excellent sticks, but if you hate them, that means you bought the wrong set for you... I know I wouldn't buy one, but I love what the 4-iron has done.

    Frankly, if you don't need a hollow 9-iron, you shouldn't buy a hollow 9-iron. If you do need one, by golly it's good they make them!

    Posted:

    14 Pings. Blueprints are incredibly good. Fetch is the most underrated putter on the market. Don't @ me.

  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day... south carolina 28935WRX Points: 5,425Members Posts: 28,935
    Joined:  #139

    Ok. I’ve followed this thread for a long time. And it’s really interesting.

    I played i500 from day one until around feb this year. Now am back to an mb ( blueprint) and back in love.

    I’ll tell you what the i500 issue is. It’s much harder to hit than most smaller irons. I played them well. But I’m telling you they are not easy to hit flush. And flush is The only place they feel good. They should have been marketed to low handicap players. Not as a GI club. Those who say they feel harsh or aren’t forgiving aren’t wrong. But it’s because they aren’t finding the exact middle. This iron has a very high vertical COG. And requires a sharp downward strike. Thus I love this iron for wet conditions. Easy to get down to the cog sweetspot. .

    Posted:
    Ping G410  11.2* Tensei pro OrangeV2 proto 70TX 
    Ping G410 15.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Ping G410 21* ADDI 105x 
    Ping Blueprint  3- PW   Modus 130X 
    Ping Glide Forged  54 60 s400
    Cameron GSS 1.5 009. Sound slot,  tungsten weights. 


  • jwb10jwb10 Major Winner Mars 1034WRX Points: 150Members Posts: 1,034
    Joined:  #140

    On -, @Sonja Henie said:

    I'm debating between i210s and i500s. I hated the G400 Crossover though. Whenever I hit the ball high on the face, even if dead center, it would float for about 100 yards with zero spin and just crash to the earth as if it got shot out of the air. Other times I hit it great, but it was that miss that made me sell it. Am I in for more of that with the i500s?

    yup, but not with the 210s

    Posted:
  • jwb10jwb10 Major Winner Mars 1034WRX Points: 150Members Posts: 1,034
    Joined:  #141

    On -, @bladehunter said:

    Ok. I’ve followed this thread for a long time. And it’s really interesting.

    I played i500 from day one until around feb this year. Now am back to an mb ( blueprint) and back in love.

    I’ll tell you what the i500 issue is. It’s much harder to hit than most smaller irons. I played them well. But I’m telling you they are not easy to hit flush. And flush is The only place they feel good. They should have been marketed to low handicap players. Not as a GI club. Those who say they feel harsh or aren’t forgiving aren’t wrong. But it’s because they aren’t finding the exact middle. This iron has a very high vertical COG. And requires a sharp downward strike. Thus I love this iron for wet conditions. Easy to get down to the cog sweetspot. .

    Again, Ping marketed the 500s as a players distance club. In fact, it it is a clanking disperser of bad shots. I've played blades, they HAVE a sweet spot, not a "I just got lucky enough for the VCOG to clank one near the target" spot. Too bad, too, cause they are pretty

    Posted:
  • Sonja HenieSonja Henie  204WRX Points: 70Members Posts: 204
    Joined:  #142

    On -, @bladehunter said:

    Ok. I’ve followed this thread for a long time. And it’s really interesting.

    I played i500 from day one until around feb this year. Now am back to an mb ( blueprint) and back in love.

    I’ll tell you what the i500 issue is. It’s much harder to hit than most smaller irons. I played them well. But I’m telling you they are not easy to hit flush. And flush is The only place they feel good. They should have been marketed to low handicap players. Not as a GI club. Those who say they feel harsh or aren’t forgiving aren’t wrong. But it’s because they aren’t finding the exact middle. This iron has a very high vertical COG. And requires a sharp downward strike. Thus I love this iron for wet conditions. Easy to get down to the cog sweetspot. .

    I don't get this. There are lots of reviews from mid-caps who say they hit it great and that it's even easier to hit than the G700.

    Posted:

    Ping G400 Max, Hzrdus Black 6.5
    Ping G400 3 Wood 14.5*
    Ping G400 3H 19* or Srixon ZU65 19*
    Srixon Z545 (4-5), Srixon Z765 (6-7), Srixon Z945 (8-PW)
    Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth 52 & 58
    Odyssey O-Works 7S
    Srixon Z Star XV

  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • QuigleyDUQuigleyDU  8628WRX Points: 2,221Members Posts: 8,628
    Joined:  #143

    On -, @1Mordrid1 said:

    On -, @torbill said:

    On -, @1Mordrid1 said:

    On -, @torbill said:

    I agree with you guys, and some of the complaints about this iron continue to be a mystery to me.

    Sound and feel are personal and subjective things. Personally, I think that these clubs sound and feel great, so long as I hit them well. But that’s just me. And in any event, sound and feel are secondary to me. Most important is performance, and these clubs have it. Second in importance is look at address. I grew up with true blades, and I have always loved the clean look. I played game improvement clubs for many years, but never liked the look. With the i500 I have found the clean look of a true blade and a lot of forgiveness, so that on a mishit they go reasonably well and they don't loosen my dental fillings like the old musclebacks.

    _ I would argue that the other complaint - excessive dispersion - is either a myth or a cover-up for bad contact._ Dispersion problems come from contact problems, not club problems. In my view it is ridiculous to assert that a consistent strike from this club, or any other club that was ever invented, results in inconsistent performance. I was trained as a mechanical engineer. Would somebody please explain to me how, by the laws of physics, two bodies that do not vary in their physical properties from shot to shot can *possibly* vary in performance if the input is the same? Such claims are surely a figment of the imagination or an excuse for inconsistent contact. It is one thing to not like the performance of this club under varying ground conditions that we might encounter during a round of golf. It is another thing to complain about something that, by my understanding of the laws of physics, is physically impossible. Getting fliers off a tee on a par 3? Come on...

    I find this argument laughable as well.
    What people do not understand is that with the new "lower spin = distance" philosophy and club design, what has happened is that it puts some people much closer to the line of their spin being too low. So a slight miss-hit could potentially drop them below that line. When it drops too low, especially with higher swing speeds, then you can get a flier. But people blame the club, rather than the contact because their previous set did not exhibit this. This is why "forgiveness" is such a subjective term.

    If clubs were capable of these mythical fliers on perfectly struck shots then none of them would ever pass the COR tests.

    Here is some measured spin data:

    https://www.milesofgolf.com/ping-i210-i500-iron-review/

    Feel free to provide any published spin data of your choice.

    Readers can decide for themselves if a spin rate that is 10% less than the iBlade and 5% less than the i210 can possibly tip a swing of any speed, fast or slow, into the consistency abyss that lives in your imagination.

    So I state that the random fairway "fliers" people are talking about are strike related. So you post results of several different irons with data from good or solid strikes. If anything you are making my point. Good strikes should and did yield similar results in your example. Bad strikes however will not always provide symmetrical results across different club types .

    Why has nobody ever been able to "recreate" these fliers on a launch monitor. Because the data does not lie. Generally if you get an outlier on a launch monitor that goes 20 yards further than normal, you can usually look at the data and see a ridiculously low spin number. So if there is a huge disparity in the spin number between strikes, how is that not strike related? Or are we now to believe that club manufacturers are now making clubs with inconsistent spin from the sweet spot?

    good for you, you listen to the podcast. I have recreated them multiple times on gcquad. These irons are very low spin. I have zero need for a 7 iron that goes 220 and a wedge (or iron that says wedge) to go 175. . And yes, that is how far at sea level I hit it. They are too hot (at least for me) to be playable.

    Posted:
    Driver: Callaway Epic SubZero 3D 9*, Fujikura Ventus 7X
    3 iron Cobra King Utility Aldila Rouge 90 X flex
    4-PW Mizuno MP-18 MB Aldila RIP SLT Tour 115X Flex
    WEDGES; CLEVELAND RTX4: 52, 58, 64
    PUTTER; Kronos release long neck
    BALL; 2019 ProV1 yellow/Snell MTB-X yellow
  • McjanztonMcjanzton Sweden 32WRX Points: 45Members Posts: 32
    Joined:  #144

    They remind me of my G400 cross over in feel and sound. Toe hit is a loud but dead “klonk” and heel is a loud “crack”, both resonate up the shaft. Sweet spot is nice, soft and loud. Massive launch in both the crossover and i500.

    Didn’t fit my game, too bad I love the look.

    Posted:
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day... south carolina 28935WRX Points: 5,425Members Posts: 28,935
    Joined:  #145

    On -, @Sonja Henie said:

    On -, @bladehunter said:

    Ok. I’ve followed this thread for a long time. And it’s really interesting.

    I played i500 from day one until around feb this year. Now am back to an mb ( blueprint) and back in love.

    I’ll tell you what the i500 issue is. It’s much harder to hit than most smaller irons. I played them well. But I’m telling you they are not easy to hit flush. And flush is The only place they feel good. They should have been marketed to low handicap players. Not as a GI club. Those who say they feel harsh or aren’t forgiving aren’t wrong. But it’s because they aren’t finding the exact middle. This iron has a very high vertical COG. And requires a sharp downward strike. Thus I love this iron for wet conditions. Easy to get down to the cog sweetspot. .

    I don't get this. There are lots of reviews from mid-caps who say they hit it great and that it's even easier to hit than the G700.

    Hit it great is a relative term. Mid caps may very well hit it same as anything else.

    I’m not down on the iron. I’d play it in a second if I lived in softer conditions year round. But I do see why it gets loads of flack. I had to work harder to hit it flush that I do the blueprint set I’m playing.

    Posted:
    Ping G410  11.2* Tensei pro OrangeV2 proto 70TX 
    Ping G410 15.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Ping G410 21* ADDI 105x 
    Ping Blueprint  3- PW   Modus 130X 
    Ping Glide Forged  54 60 s400
    Cameron GSS 1.5 009. Sound slot,  tungsten weights. 


  • jwb10jwb10 Major Winner Mars 1034WRX Points: 150Members Posts: 1,034
    Joined:  #146

    On -, @bladehunter said:

    On -, @Sonja Henie said:

    On -, @bladehunter said:

    Ok. I’ve followed this thread for a long time. And it’s really interesting.

    I played i500 from day one until around feb this year. Now am back to an mb ( blueprint) and back in love.

    I’ll tell you what the i500 issue is. It’s much harder to hit than most smaller irons. I played them well. But I’m telling you they are not easy to hit flush. And flush is The only place they feel good. They should have been marketed to low handicap players. Not as a GI club. Those who say they feel harsh or aren’t forgiving aren’t wrong. But it’s because they aren’t finding the exact middle. This iron has a very high vertical COG. And requires a sharp downward strike. Thus I love this iron for wet conditions. Easy to get down to the cog sweetspot. .

    I don't get this. There are lots of reviews from mid-caps who say they hit it great and that it's even easier to hit than the G700.

    Hit it great is a relative term. Mid caps may very well hit it same as anything else.

    I’m not down on the iron. I’d play it in a second if I lived in softer conditions year round. But I do see why it gets loads of flack. I had to work harder to hit it flush that I do the blueprint set I’m playing.

    does the the blueprint have a vcog issue ?

    Posted:
  • lawsonmanlawsonman Freeport, Illinois 5831WRX Points: 1,099Members Posts: 5,831
    Joined:  #147

    On -, @bladehunter said:

    Ok. I’ve followed this thread for a long time. And it’s really interesting.

    I played i500 from day one until around feb this year. Now am back to an mb ( blueprint) and back in love.

    I’ll tell you what the i500 issue is. It’s much harder to hit than most smaller irons. I played them well. But I’m telling you they are not easy to hit flush. And flush is The only place they feel good. They should have been marketed to low handicap players. Not as a GI club. Those who say they feel harsh or aren’t forgiving aren’t wrong. But it’s because they aren’t finding the exact middle. This iron has a very high vertical COG. And requires a sharp downward strike. Thus I love this iron for wet conditions. Easy to get down to the cog sweetspot. .

    This makes complete sense to me. There hasn't been a iron release in the last 10 years that I was more excited about than the I500's. I tested them 4 times and I don't remember a single shot that wowed me. I just couldn't find the sweet spot. I know it makes no sense but unfortunately that was my results.

    Posted:
    Ping G400 driver
    Ping Anser 17,20,23 Hybrids 
    Wilson Staff MB's 6-PW
    Ping,54,58ES Wedge
    Scotty Cameron Newport 3


    Snell MTB X
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • Sonja HenieSonja Henie  204WRX Points: 70Members Posts: 204
    Joined:  #148

    On -, @bladehunter said:

    On -, @Sonja Henie said:

    On -, @bladehunter said:

    Ok. I’ve followed this thread for a long time. And it’s really interesting.

    I played i500 from day one until around feb this year. Now am back to an mb ( blueprint) and back in love.

    I’ll tell you what the i500 issue is. It’s much harder to hit than most smaller irons. I played them well. But I’m telling you they are not easy to hit flush. And flush is The only place they feel good. They should have been marketed to low handicap players. Not as a GI club. Those who say they feel harsh or aren’t forgiving aren’t wrong. But it’s because they aren’t finding the exact middle. This iron has a very high vertical COG. And requires a sharp downward strike. Thus I love this iron for wet conditions. Easy to get down to the cog sweetspot. .

    I don't get this. There are lots of reviews from mid-caps who say they hit it great and that it's even easier to hit than the G700.

    Hit it great is a relative term. Mid caps may very well hit it same as anything else.

    I’m not down on the iron. I’d play it in a second if I lived in softer conditions year round. But I do see why it gets loads of flack. I had to work harder to hit it flush that I do the blueprint set I’m playing.

    Fair enough. I guess it's all relative.

    Posted:

    Ping G400 Max, Hzrdus Black 6.5
    Ping G400 3 Wood 14.5*
    Ping G400 3H 19* or Srixon ZU65 19*
    Srixon Z545 (4-5), Srixon Z765 (6-7), Srixon Z945 (8-PW)
    Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth 52 & 58
    Odyssey O-Works 7S
    Srixon Z Star XV

  • JDMRN81JDMRN81 PA 596WRX Points: 124Members Posts: 596
    Joined:  #149

    There are so many variables at play when it comes to what works for each person. Proper shaft, swing mechanics, type of courses played, etc. I was just watching the below review between Ping’s top irons and the i500 preformed very well. This guy was getting better backspin on the stronger lofted (3.5*) i500 7i vs the blueprints 7i. The i500’s also had less ball speed drop off, carry distance drop off, and less offline average vs the blueprints. The i210’s also look like they performed very well for this golfer.

    Posted:
    PXG 0811xf Gen 2 9* AD VR-6x
    PXG 0341x Gen 3 16* AD VR-7x
    Ping i210 4-UW Modus 105s
    Ping Glide 2.0 54/58 Modus 105s
    Evnroll ER2 Black 34"
    Callaway Chrome Soft Truvis Stars and Stripes
  • torbilltorbill  368WRX Points: 242Members Posts: 368
    Joined:  edited Jul 6, 2019 1:23pm #150

    Who is this club for, anyway? I do think that this question gets to the heart of the mystery and controversy.

    I know who this club is for. It is for me. I am old. I am a low handicap player. I hit my irons pretty much on the nose. I am losing distance. This club makes me feel young again. I grew up with muscle-back, forged clubs and loved the clean look, and never got real comfortable with the look of bulk and offset. I think that jwb is right in his characterization of who this club is for - player's distance iron.

    The criticism of low spin is unfair. I published in this thread a link to spin data. It shows that, yes, this club spins less than some of Ping’s other offerings. But it is modestly less. Not “low spin”. I know that this data is reasonably good because I came from the iBlades, and this is the sort of percent difference I experienced on a monitor.

    These hollow irons allow the manufacturer to do things with the face that they can’t do with solid metal. Ping claims greater dynamic loft, and anybody who has ever hit an i500 has to be a believer. In spite of aggressive lofts, these things launch up toward the stars.

    I have read enough of Bladehunter’s posts over time to know that he is an exceedingly serious player who knows what he is talking about. I respect his experience and opinion. It was a bit of a mystery to me why he moved on from the i500 and why I continue to think that these clubs are amazing. Aside from different skill levels, the answer may lie in his hard playing conditions versus the soft conditions that I experience year round.

    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • JD3JD3  4995WRX Points: 374Members Posts: 4,995
    Joined:  #151

    Haven't hit so take fwiw but the club looks scary to me. Scary as in hard to it. Reminds me of the first generation Callaway hybrid utility irons. Where the tungsten weight was right in the middle of the sole. Miss sweet spot fraction left or right and it would veer off wildly.

    Posted:
    TM M1 2017 10.5 Aldila NV 2KXV Green 60x
    TM M1 2016 3W HL Tensei CK White 70x 
    Ping G410 HB 19 KBS Graphite Tour Hybrid 85s+
    Callaway Apex 2019 4 - AW KBS Tour 120s (hard stepped 1x)
    Yururi Tataki Wedges 52.5 and 60.5 KBS Hi-Rev 2.0x
    Ping Anser 2 Milled
    NDMC Grips (extra wrap lower half to reduce taper)
    Titleist AVX 
    UA Jordan Spieth 2
    Footjoy Tour Glove (optional, often times play without glove)
8

Leave a Comment

Rich Text Editor. To edit a paragraph's style, hit tab to get to the paragraph menu. From there you will be able to pick one style. Nothing defaults to paragraph. An inline formatting menu will show up when you select text. Hit tab to get into that menu. Some elements, such as rich link embeds, images, loading indicators, and error messages may get inserted into the editor. You may navigate to these using the arrow keys inside of the editor and delete them with the delete or backspace key.