Ping i200 v. i210 - much difference?

[gvogel]

What are the differences in distance and forgiveness between these two irons? Or are they very minor?

[kcd38]

The biggest difference to me is feel. To my eye I saw a little less offset with the i210 and was hitting more consistent shots in terms of flight and distance (slightly further than i200 but could be related to strike). Both are forgiving, hard to tell which is more for me.

[dpb5031]

I think the differences in forgiveness, playability, and performance are very minor to negligible. I play the i200s. I have a buddy who has the i210s, so I've had the opportunity to hit them side by side. Optically, at address the i210 has a taller more squared-off toe section compared to the softer more rounded lines of the i200. They both look great...I'm certainly used to my 200s but could grow accustomed to the 210s probably within a single round of golf.

 

I have not compared them on Trackman, but some folks are reporting a tad more spin with the 210s. There have been mixed reports about differences in feel, but Ping claims the 210s have their softest CTP insert to date. I did not notice a discernible difference in feel and think they both feel great for player's CBs.

 

I had $1500 in shop credit to burn and would have upgraded to the 210s if I thought there was a substantial enough improvement to warrant it, but ultimately decided to hold off. FWIW, my HC is typically between 0-3, and I'm of the opinion that these irons are great for players across a wide range of abilities, from mid teen HCs to Tour pros.

[mt3]

I've had a chance to hit them both. Feel is maybe a little better, if I hit them without knowing which head it was it would be really hard to tell a difference. Playability wise I would say the same thing. Looks behind the ball is the biggest difference as they look more streamlined. The i210's do look better, but not enough to upgrade with the performance the same for me.

[GolfChannel]

I personally thought the i200's were superior in terms of performance and feel, but feel is subjective. There isn't enough difference to warrant dropping a ton of a cash on the i210's when the i200's can be had for quite the deal online. I wouldn't be surprised if the only changes to the clubs were cosmetic so Ping could have something new to release even if largely unnecessary to do so.

[BlkNGld]

I agree that most of the differences are in the subjective nature... looks and sound/feel. Distance and forgiveness pretty much a wash.

While I think the i210s are an improvement in that regard, if I were trying to decide between i200s at a good price and i210s and both were in my specs, I wouldn't feel like I'm missing out on the i200s performancewise.

[ChipNRun]

I didn't buy them, I did get quality time with the i200 irons at three different demo days.

Got just a few indoor strikes with the i210, and it just looked strange at address. Can't say much on performance difference, just personal preference on clubhead shape.

[kiw1982]

i200 was better in all aspects for me. Everybody is so different you know.lol

[matchavez]

I felt the 210s were "muted" more than "soft". But like was said above, it's all about what you're used to, and going between the two wouldn't be much different at all.

When it comes to distance and forgiveness, they're almost identical. In robot testing, I'm sure the 210 is incrementally better. You will likely get the best results out of the one that feels better, because you'll put better strikes on the ball.

[Tree Levino]

i200 is better IMO have hit both extensively.

[nova6868]

They are nearly identical, I could play either. The i210 has just slightly more spin.

 

[dbleag]

I would miss the iron number on the face/toe, as I would verify what I was hitting every so often.

Just a small thing , but something I liked.

[agood3putt]

> @dbleag said:

> I would miss the iron number on the face/toe, as I would verify what I was hitting every so often.

> Just a small thing , but something I liked.

 

I think you’re in the minority. Wasn’t a fan of the numbers on the toe

 

[9ironiscash]

i200 are the GOAT Ping irons.

[Marco Colo]

> @dbleag said:

> I would miss the iron number on the face/toe, as I would verify what I was hitting every so often.

> Just a small thing , but something I liked.

 

+1 but I use the G410s and still with the number on the face :)

[Golf64]

210s look and feel so much better/softer. A bit longer for me by a couple of yards.

[kcd38]

I also cannot stand the iron number being visible on the toe of the i200's. Small visual difference but for some weird reason it really bugs me

[GolfChannel]

> @9ironiscash said:

> i200 are the GOAT Ping irons.

 

I don't know if they are the GOAT, but they are Ping's APEX equivalent in they are an iron which hits the largest cross section of player abilities and does so at a very high level.

[gvogel]

> @dpb5031 said:

> I think the differences in forgiveness, playability, and performance are very minor to negligible. I play the i200s. I have a buddy who has the i210s, so I've had the opportunity to hit them side by side. O**ptically, at address the i210 has a taller more squared-off toe section compared to the softer more rounded lines of the i200**. They both look great...I'm certainly used to my 200s but could grow accustomed to the 210s probably within a single round of golf.

>

> I have not compared them on Trackman, but some folks are reporting a tad more spin with the 210s. There have been mixed reports about differences in feel, but Ping claims the 210s have their softest CTP insert to date. I did not notice a discernible difference in feel and think they both feel great for player's CBs.

>

> I had $1500 in shop credit to burn and would have upgraded to the 210s if I thought there was a substantial enough improvement to warrant it, but ultimately decided to hold off. FWIW, my HC is typically between 0-3, and I'm of the opinion that these irons are great for players across a wide range of abilities, from mid teen HCs to Tour pros.

 

Yesterday at a golf store I was able to compare an i200 7-iron and i210 7-iron at address. They looked identical to me, except that the i200 has the club number on the toe.

 

I will also say this: I compared the i210 7-iron that I bought to my AP2 714 7-iron. The i210 looks a good bit bigger - not quite AP1 bigger, but definitely larger than the AP2.

[dugue4]

reviving this old thread.... Anyone else give any other info between the two?  I'm looking at getting a "new to me" set of irons and i love the feel of the 210s, but i can get the 200s for ~$150 cheaper.  I haven't found anywhere I can hit the 200s yet.

[dugue4]

Any thoughts on blending the 2?  I have the 210s 7-G and have a chance to buy the 200s 4-6.  Will it make much difference?

[Jeff58]

26 minutes ago, dugue4 said:

Any thoughts on blending the 2?  I have the 210s 7-G and have a chance to buy the 200s 4-6.  Will it make much difference?

 

The most significant difference between them is that the i210’s have a higher CG, which gives them more of a player’s trajectory and distance. For long irons, the i200’s lower CG and half degree weaker loft are likely pure advantages.

[stormin70]

41 minutes ago, Jeff58 said:

 

The most significant difference between them is that the i210’s have a higher CG, which gives them more of a player’s trajectory and distance. For long irons, the i200’s lower CG and half degree weaker loft are likely pure advantages.

I have sets of both i200 and i210. With mine, the lofts are identical.  Other than looks, they play the same for me - I don’t notice any difference in them at all.  I play them both regularly - just depends on if I’m grabbing the stand bag or the cart bag.  They’re both great.

[njlam]

I have the i200s and prefer the looks to the i210.

As someone earlier said these are the GOAT Ping irons.

Will play these until the successor to the i210 comes out.