Most forgiving 4 iron between Eye2+, Zing, and Zing 2

[MarvinTheMartian]

Of the Ping Eye2+, Zing, and Zing 2, which 4 iron would elevate the easiest? And/or be the most forgiving? I'm more concerned about height though.

[boggyman]

Currently have a set of Eye2+ in my bag and the 4 I find very forgiving as well as the 3also.Cant help on the others,sorry. Mine have the zz lites in them and elevate easy for me,nice mid to high piercing flight.

[Shallowface]

[quote name='MarvinTheMartian' timestamp='1426298787' post='11139863']
Of the Ping Eye2+, Zing, and Zing 2, which 4 iron would elevate the easiest? And/or be the most forgiving? I'm more concerned about height though.
[/quote]

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

The Eye 2 has the lowest Actual Vertical Center of Gravity of the three you listed, but only by a bit.

The easiest to get airborne would be the G2 HL.

[scruffynick]

The eye2 is the best iron I've used for simply standing there and whacking! Brilliant irons, why I sold mine Lord only knows!

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='Shallowface' timestamp='1426301835' post='11140133']
[quote name='MarvinTheMartian' timestamp='1426298787' post='11139863']
Of the Ping Eye2+, Zing, and Zing 2, which 4 iron would elevate the easiest? And/or be the most forgiving? I'm more concerned about height though.
[/quote]

[url="http://www.golfworks.com/images/art/MPF_PING.pdf"]http://www.golfworks...rt/MPF_PING.pdf[/url]

The Eye 2 has the lowest Actual Vertical Center of Gravity of the three you listed, but only by a bit.

The easiest to get airborne would be the G2 HL.
[/quote]
My understanding of vertical gear effect is that low CoG/higher launch = lower spin. A good trajectory, esp in long irons depends both on getting the ball up and keeping it up.

The eye2+ is half a degree more lofted, which will add elevation AND spin, though not much.

The zings and zing2s will be a bit more generous on mishits. Ping said zing was their most forgiving club, at least until the G2.

I'd think all 3 heads would be pretty close, within the margins of what a change of shaft might do for you.

[ZBigStick]

Back in the day when I played the Eye 2, I added a Zing 2 two iron, after playing with a friends Eye 2 two iron, thinking I'd get similar results with more forgiveness. Not for me. The sole was too thin and the trail edge sometimes caught on the backswing. The whole club felt like the weight was high on the toe.

Of older model Pings, the Eye 2 was the genius, everything else was just trying to be it.

[TheLarch]

I've played them all. There's nothing more forgiving or solid feeling than a Zing iron.

[Shallowface]

[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1426338490' post='11141347']
[quote name='Shallowface' timestamp='1426301835' post='11140133']
[quote name='MarvinTheMartian' timestamp='1426298787' post='11139863']
Of the Ping Eye2+, Zing, and Zing 2, which 4 iron would elevate the easiest? And/or be the most forgiving? I'm more concerned about height though.
[/quote]

[url="http://www.golfworks.com/images/art/MPF_PING.pdf"]http://www.golfworks...rt/MPF_PING.pdf[/url]

The Eye 2 has the lowest Actual Vertical Center of Gravity of the three you listed, but only by a bit.

The easiest to get airborne would be the G2 HL.
[/quote]
My understanding of vertical gear effect is that low CoG/higher launch = lower spin. A good trajectory, esp in long irons depends both on getting the ball up and keeping it up.

The eye2+ is half a degree more lofted, which will add elevation AND spin, though not much.

The zings and zing2s will be a bit more generous on mishits. Ping said zing was their most forgiving club, at least until the G2.

I'd think all 3 heads would be pretty close, within the margins of what a change of shaft might do for you.
[/quote]

Lower COG is everything in a long iron. High COG oversized long irons of the late 80s and 90s are the reason the hybrid was invented.

I think we've had this debate Birly, and we're not going to change each others minds. I've just read and personally experienced way too much to think any other way.

[birly-shirly]

That's all right Shallowface - I think we have been here before, and I'm not trying to change your mind.

But so far as the OP's concerned, I just happen to think that the answer depends on a lot of factors, including how he strikes the ball, how much clubhead speed he generates and what shots he's trying to hit. I don't think that a low centre of gravity is the magic bullet any more than a titanium insert.

And there's no such thing as a free lunch. Karsten designed a slightly higher CoG into his classic irons in order to launch lower but with increased backspin. That much is declared in one of his clubhead patents.

But lower spinning balls, or tighter cut fairways, or low clubhead speed could make that a bad fit for certain players, I suppose.

[Shallowface]

[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1426362926' post='11143057']
That's all right Shallowface - I think we have been here before, and I'm not trying to change your mind.

But so far as the OP's concerned, I just happen to think that the answer depends on a lot of factors, including how he strikes the ball, how much clubhead speed he generates and what shots he's trying to hit. I don't think that a low centre of gravity is the magic bullet any more than a titanium insert.

And there's no such thing as a free lunch. Karsten designed a slightly higher CoG into his classic irons in order to launch lower but with increased backspin. That much is declared in one of his clubhead patents.

But lower spinning balls, or tighter cut fairways, or low clubhead speed could make that a bad fit for certain players, I suppose.
[/quote]

Are you referring to this patent?

[url="https://www.google.com/patents/US4512577?dq=karsten+solheim&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uPIEVe-rNonCggSp3oPACg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCTgU"]https://www.google.c...d=0CFsQ6AEwCTgU[/url]

An interesting read. The most fascinating thing to me was the claim that a golf ball slides up the face when struck. The Browning company had proven that to be false years before this patent, and the high speed video of today has proven that to be false time and again.

I think a higher COG is fine from the 7 Iron through the wedges. It was those high spinning short irons people saw on TV that boosted Eye 2 sales.

But that philosophy applied throughout the set could explain in part why the offerings between the Eye 2 and the I3 didn't do all that well in the marketplace. Low launch/high spin just doesn't work well with the longer irons.

[birly-shirly]

Yes - but what happened to not trying to change each other's minds?

[scruffynick]

Like many I've used most of the older pings, eye 2 always best for me until I recently got some of the 76 karsten III irons.......the 4 iron in these are the best ping I've ever hit......they are older than me by a year ha ha but seriously they are fantastic to hit and very forgiving

[XYB34A]

I have played them all. Shot in the 60s with all 3. The Zing is so frigging ugly. But its the easy one to hit. The Zing2 is more of a forgiving players iron. The eye2+ is like Titleist Cavity back iron. Forgiving if you don't miss it by much. Murder if you cant hit the sweet spot at all. But for the time each of these were great. The Zings with the KT shaft were moon balls. I always played DGX in my Pings. The Zing2, I switched the shafts out for Rifle 7.5. I sold them to a friend and he is still playing them 20 years later.

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='Shallowface' timestamp='1426388966' post='11145311']
[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1426362926' post='11143057']
That's all right Shallowface - I think we have been here before, and I'm not trying to change your mind.

But so far as the OP's concerned, I just happen to think that the answer depends on a lot of factors, including how he strikes the ball, how much clubhead speed he generates and what shots he's trying to hit. I don't think that a low centre of gravity is the magic bullet any more than a titanium insert.

And there's no such thing as a free lunch. Karsten designed a slightly higher CoG into his classic irons in order to launch lower but with increased backspin. That much is declared in one of his clubhead patents.

But lower spinning balls, or tighter cut fairways, or low clubhead speed could make that a bad fit for certain players, I suppose.
[/quote]

Are you referring to this patent?

[url="https://www.google.com/patents/US4512577?dq=karsten+solheim&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uPIEVe-rNonCggSp3oPACg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCTgU"]https://www.google.c...d=0CFsQ6AEwCTgU[/url]

An interesting read. The most fascinating thing to me was the claim that a golf ball slides up the face when struck. The Browning company had proven that to be false years before this patent, and the high speed video of today has proven that to be false time and again.

[/quote]

Sorry, but I've been mulling this over since your post. It's been proven repeatedly that a golf ball doesn't slide up the face when struck?

I agree that balls don't slide all the way up the face and take flight from the top groove - but isn't it accepted that during impact the golf ball first slides and then rolls? Not very far in the half a millisecond that ball and club are in contact - and maybe not even far enough to be visible in even high speed/slomo video - but I don't see how you can explain backspin without the ball rolling up the face, or fliers without the ball sliding up the face.

That was the model of impact explained in Search for the Perfect Swing, and it's still fundamentally there in this article [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/76915/the-truth-about-spin-it-might-be-different-than-what-you-think/"]http://www.golfwrx.com/76915/the-truth-about-spin-it-might-be-different-than-what-you-think/[/url]

That same article endorses the idea that impact below the clubhead's CoG increases backspin, as does published research by Trackman. The effect is more pronounced in woods and hybrids where the CoG is further back from the clubface. It would follow that gear effect spin will be more pronounced in deeper cavity back irons than it is in blades. But I haven't heard anyone suggest that you can't hit a lowflying, highspinning wedge shot with a Vokey or a Cleveland blade.

[Shallowface]

[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1426717821' post='11169107']
[quote name='Shallowface' timestamp='1426388966' post='11145311']
[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1426362926' post='11143057']
That's all right Shallowface - I think we have been here before, and I'm not trying to change your mind.

But so far as the OP's concerned, I just happen to think that the answer depends on a lot of factors, including how he strikes the ball, how much clubhead speed he generates and what shots he's trying to hit. I don't think that a low centre of gravity is the magic bullet any more than a titanium insert.

And there's no such thing as a free lunch. Karsten designed a slightly higher CoG into his classic irons in order to launch lower but with increased backspin. That much is declared in one of his clubhead patents.

But lower spinning balls, or tighter cut fairways, or low clubhead speed could make that a bad fit for certain players, I suppose.
[/quote]

Are you referring to this patent?

[url="https://www.google.com/patents/US4512577?dq=karsten+solheim&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uPIEVe-rNonCggSp3oPACg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCTgU"]https://www.google.c...d=0CFsQ6AEwCTgU[/url]

An interesting read. The most fascinating thing to me was the claim that a golf ball slides up the face when struck. The Browning company had proven that to be false years before this patent, and the high speed video of today has proven that to be false time and again.

[/quote]

Sorry, but I've been mulling this over since your post. It's been proven repeatedly that a golf ball doesn't slide up the face when struck?

I agree that balls don't slide all the way up the face and take flight from the top groove - but isn't it accepted that during impact the golf ball first slides and then rolls? Not very far in the half a millisecond that ball and club are in contact - and maybe not even far enough to be visible in even high speed/slomo video - but I don't see how you can explain backspin without the ball rolling up the face, or fliers without the ball sliding up the face.

That was the model of impact explained in Search for the Perfect Swing, and it's still fundamentally there in this article [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/76915/the-truth-about-spin-it-might-be-different-than-what-you-think/"]http://www.golfwrx.c...what-you-think/[/url]

That same article endorses the idea that impact below the clubhead's CoG increases backspin, as does published research by Trackman. The effect is more pronounced in woods and hybrids where the CoG is further back from the clubface. It would follow that gear effect spin will be more pronounced in deeper cavity back irons than it is in blades. But I haven't heard anyone suggest that you can't hit a lowflying, highspinning wedge shot with a Vokey or a Cleveland blade.
[/quote]

If I write any more, I'd just be repeating myself.

Hopefully that which I have attempted to pass along will help others in some way. That was the only goal I had.

Good luck with your game this year.

[birly-shirly]

Thanks shallowface - but I don't think you'd be repeating yourself if you expanded on your statement that it's been disproved that the ball slides up the face during impact.

I've given credible sources to support my side of the debate. If they've been discredited I'd surely like to hear more. Surely we can manage a civilised discussion?