Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Handicap
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,345 profile views

BubbaBallesteros's Achievements



  1. Irons are mostly for approach shots....Hitting consistant distances and tighter dispersions usually equates to more greens hit. No one cares if you can hit a PW 160 or 120, the metric most golfers care about is score haha
  2. I was hoping for a bit more forgiveness and ball speed out of the i59, but they seem to be very good at control and consistency. I can see them being a good 7-PW club for my ball striking ability. I kinda feel like the Blueprints could fill that end of the bag too, if I'm going to be spending a premium. I just can't wait for the i210 replacement, iCrossover and the Glide 4.0 to release!
  3. Both MGS and Golf Digest categorized the P770 as a Players Distance Iron. The I59's "hollow" design is based on MOI increase and not increasing face flex/ball speed like the P770. i500 and P770 are in the same boat.
  4. I mean these two irons aren't even in the same category. The P770 is more like the i500, both being "Players Distance" irons. So if the i59 was here to replace the i500, it would make sense to compare but it's replacing the iBlade.
  5. Check out to the other thread. Lots of comparison photos. https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1830922-2021-ping-i59-irons-glide-forged-wedges-in-hand-comparison-pics/ The grooves placement isn't as bad as some people are making it out to be when you see them next to other clubs...
  6. By the looks of the US pricing, these will be more than the Blueprints up here in Canada..... Was going to look at getting a iCrossover (4)/ i230 (5-6)/ i59 (7-PW) combo set when the i230 and iCrossover get released but I might just get some Blueprints instead of the i59.
  7. i210 are much softer than the i200 and just better overall. Just go to a fitter and try them all, see what you like and perform the best.
  8. You can say it doest work if you haven't tested it or can cite something that shows data to support it. I also can't say for certainly that they work as well because I don't have the number of data point to make a true case. All I know is that from studying and working in aerodynamics for the last 9 years, that turbulators or vortex generators are a pretty well known and understood aerodynamic device that's does help flows stay attached to surfaces long, thus decreasing the amount of drag on the object. Let's just leave it at that.
  9. I hear what your saying, but the article I post shows data from a test that shows a correlation between club head speed and weight. Even Ian from TXG had trouble reaching the swing speeds he did in the SIM2 (116mph)with the heavier G425 LST (112mph) with the the same shaft. However, I agree that there are many variables that relate to the biomechanics of the swing. Let's get this thread back on topic. However I would like to see the other guys article that debunks turbulators. If you don't have hard imperical evidence/data, you can't really form an argument.
  10. Same here. I've been trying to complete my PING Players Iron Sunday Bag for the last 4 months, since I heard about the i59. +S55 4i +iBlade 6i +I59 8i (the only missing piece) +Blueprint PW
  11. I was talking 6g difference and not 205g. I do know what you mean though, I wonder what the extent you can. Here's a table of some data regarding clubs head weight vs. club head speed. https://probablegolfinstruction.com/PGI Newsletter/news02-12-04.htm It clearly shows that club head speed goes up when head weight goes down.
  • Create New...