Jump to content

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


jwb10

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 2

Ping G430 Max 10 w Alta 55

Ping G430 5 wood w Alta 65

Ping G425 7 wood w Slay 55

Ping G430 9 wood with Speeder EVO6

Ping G430 Hybrid w PX Red Smoke
Srixon ZX5 6-PW w Recoil 660

Vokey SM8 50.12 F Grind w Recoil 95
Vokey SM10 56.12 D Grind w Recoil 95
Vokey Wedgeworks 60.08 K Grind

Odyssey Jailbird

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @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.

 

> @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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @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. Damn 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @1Mordrid1 said:

> > @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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @torbill said:

> > @1Mordrid1 said:

> > > @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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @jwb10 said:

> > @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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @torbill said:

> > @1Mordrid1 said:

> > > @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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @1Mordrid1 said:

> > @"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 1

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. .

  • Like 1

Callaway epic max LS 9* GD-M9003 7x 

TM Sim2 max tour  16* GD  ADHD 8x 

srixon zx 19* elements 9F5T 

Cobra king SZ 25.5* KBS TD cat 5 70 

TM p7mc 5-pw Mmt125tx 

Mizuno T22 raw 52-56-60 s400

LAB Mezz Max armlock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @1Mordrid1 said:

> > @torbill said:

> > > @1Mordrid1 said:

> > > > @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.

  • Like 1

Driver: Paradym 3D Ventus black TR 6x

3 wood: Paradym 3d Ventus black TR 7x

19 degree UW: Ventus black TR 8x

Mizuno Pro Fli Hi 4 utility Hazrdus black 90 6.5 X

5 -PW: Callaway Apex MB, KBS $ taper 130X

Wedges - Jaws raw 50, 54, 59 KBS $ taper 130x

Putter- Mutant Wilson Staff 8802 with stroke lab shaft
BALL; Chrome Soft X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"Sonja Henie" said:

> > @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.

  • Like 1

Callaway epic max LS 9* GD-M9003 7x 

TM Sim2 max tour  16* GD  ADHD 8x 

srixon zx 19* elements 9F5T 

Cobra king SZ 25.5* KBS TD cat 5 70 

TM p7mc 5-pw Mmt125tx 

Mizuno T22 raw 52-56-60 s400

LAB Mezz Max armlock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @bladehunter said:

> > @"Sonja Henie" said:

> > > @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 ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @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.

  • Like 1

 

Ping G430 Max 10.5

Ping G430 5&7 Wood

Ping G430 19°,22° Hybrids

Callaway 2007 X-Forged 5-PW/ PXG Gen 6 XP's 7-SW

Ping Glide 58ES Wedge

Ping PLD DS72 / Scotty Cameron Studio Select Newport 2.5+ 

Life is like riding a bicycle, to keep your balance you must keep moving

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @bladehunter said:

> > @"Sonja Henie" said:

> > > @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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 Valspar Championship WITB Photos (Thanks to bvmagic)- Discussion & Links to Photos
      This weeks WITB Pics are from member bvmagic (Brian). Brian's first event for WRX was in 2008 at Bayhill while in college. Thanks so much bv.
       
      Please put your comments or question on this thread. Links to all the threads are below...
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 31 replies
    • 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Matt (LFG) Every - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Sahith Theegala - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Cameron putters (and new "LD" grip) - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Bettinardi MB & CB irons - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Bettinardi API putter cover - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Swag API covers - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Golf Pride Reverse Taper grips - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • 2024 Cognizant Classic - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #1
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #2
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #3
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #4
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Brandt Snedeker - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Max Greyserman - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Eric Cole - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Carl Yuan - WITb - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Russell Henley - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Justin Sun - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alex Noren - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Shane Lowry - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Taylor Montgomery - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jake Knapp (KnappTime_ltd) - WITB - - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Super Stoke Pistol Lock 1.0 & 2.0 grips - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      LA Golf new insert putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Garsen Quad Tour 15 grip - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Swag covers - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jacob Bridgeman's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Bud Cauley's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Ryo Hisatsune's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Chris Kirk - new black Callaway Apex CB irons and a few Odyssey putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alejandro Tosti's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 2 replies
    • 2024 Genesis Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #3
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #4
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Rory McIlroy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Sepp Straka - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Patrick Rodgers - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Brendon Todd - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Denny McCarthy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Corey Conners - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Chase Johnson - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tommy Fleetwood - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Matt Fitzpatrick - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Si Woo Kim - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Viktor Hovland - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Wyndham Clark - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Cam Davis - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Nick Taylor - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Ben Baller WITB update (New putter, driver, hybrid and shafts) – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Vortex Golf rangefinder - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Fujikura Ventus shaft - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods & TaylorMade "Sun Day Red" apparel launch event, product photos – 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods Sun Day Red golf shoes - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Aretera shafts - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Toulon putters - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods' new white "Sun Day Red" golf shoe prototypes – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      • 22 replies
    • 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put and questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open - Monday #1
      2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open - Monday #2
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Ben Taylor - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Garrick Higgo - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Billy Horschel - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Justin Lower - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Lanto Griffin - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Bud Cauley - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Corbin Burnes (2021 NL Cy Young) - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Greyson Sigg - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Charley Hoffman - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Nico Echavarria - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Victor Perez - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Sami Valimaki - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Ryo Hisatsune - WITB - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
       
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Jake Knapp's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      New Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Tyler Duncan's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Greyson Sigg's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Sunjae Im's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Ping's Waste Management putter covers - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Vincent Whaley's custom Cameron - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Odyssey Waste Management putter covers - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Super Stroke custom grips - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Cameron putters - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Zac Blair's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
      Bettinardi Waste Management putter covers - 2024 Waste Management Phoenix Open
       
       
       
       
       
       

       
      • 12 replies

×
×
  • Create New...