Ping Eye 2 - How Does is stack Up vs Today’s clubs

[JD3]

Only for nostalgia reasons would someone use them imo. High lofts and spin, plus large offset will make the ball pop up in the air. Very noticeable loss in distance. Over the years OEMs have come up with ways to make even higher MoI irons but with stronger lofts, less offset, less spin and overall better, even bladey, look at address.  

Edited November 10, 2023 by JD3

[AngryGilmore]

2 hours ago, JD3 said:

Only for nostalgia reasons would someone use them imo. High lofts and spin, plus large offset will make the ball pop up in the air. Very noticeable loss in distance. Over the years OEMs have come up with ways to make even higher MoI irons but with stronger lofts, less offset, less spin and overall better, even bladey, look at address.  

Was that "noticeable loss in distance" because you were matching it with a modern 7 iron?  Then yes.  Today's manufacturers jack up the lofts so the distance on a Eye 2 7 iron will be less than today's 7 iron.  Loft for loft, they still hold up.    I'm not crazy about the offset but they still work and hold up well.

 

I went out over Labor Day and played with the copper Eye2 set I have.  It was a fun round with a couple of friends who dig out old sets once a year and all go out and golf together.  

[Maine Golfer]

8 minutes ago, AngryGilmore said:

Was that "noticeable loss in distance" because you were matching it with a modern 7 iron?  Then yes.  Today's manufacturers jack up the lofts so the distance on a Eye 2 7 iron will be less than today's 7 iron.  Loft for loft, they still hold up.    I'm not crazy about the offset but they still work and hold up well.

 

I went out over Labor Day and played with the copper Eye2 set I have.  It was a fun round with a couple of friends who dig out old sets once a year and all go out and golf together.  

Right you have to basically compare a modern 8 to a Ping Eye 2 7 

[JD3]

17 minutes ago, AngryGilmore said:

Was that "noticeable loss in distance" because you were matching it with a modern 7 iron?  Then yes.  Today's manufacturers jack up the lofts so the distance on a Eye 2 7 iron will be less than today's 7 iron.  Loft for loft, they still hold up.    I'm not crazy about the offset but they still work and hold up well.

 

I went out over Labor Day and played with the copper Eye2 set I have.  It was a fun round with a couple of friends who dig out old sets once a year and all go out and golf together.  

Good question. I compare distance to distance rather than # on the bottom. For the same distance, modern irons outperform classics in other stats like launch angle, lower spin, steeper descent, and less dispersion.

[dmeeksDC]

12 minutes ago, Maine Golfer said:

Right you have to basically compare a modern 8 to a Ping Eye 2 7 

Correct. The number on the bottom of the club means nothing because there is no standard on lofts. All that matters is the loft on the head and length of the shaft. A better way to compare irons of different generations.
 

Often an older 7 iron lines up with a current 8 iron. OEMs do this so players can marvel at how far they can hit an 8 iron vs a 7 iron but they’re not noticing the loft differences. Ping Eye2 heads can be loft adjusted like any club but I would not bend them more than 2 degrees and that would only be to dial in flight window. 

[Maine Golfer]

I like my Zing (1s) long irons but Eye 2's rock also. A lot of players can get ether sit dialed in for a nice price for modern golf. 

[mrdctaylor]

I recently upgraded from Ping ISI-K irons (released in 1998 I believe, so newer than the Eye 2) to Cleveland Launcher XL irons (not the Halos), so I feel somewhat qualified to speak on this. 🙂

 

A little backstory: I bought the Pings used not too long after they were released, so they were pretty much state of the art.  I played a fair amount of golf back then and shot in the 80s regularly.  Usually the high 80s.  For reference, in 2000 I would've been 28 years old.  We started having kids and I played much less golf to the point where I didn't even play once per year and then pretty much not at all.  I'd lost interest. 

 

My son grew up and took up golf after college, so of course he drug me back into it.  He's a really good athlete (all state wide receiver, went to state in tennis, etc.) and immediately started breaking 100.  When I got back into it I was shooting mid-90s, and went to the range just enough to be competitive with my son.  He wanted to beat me, but still hadn't.  I first replaced my 20 year old Nike driver and added a couple of hybrids to the bag.  The hybrids were game changers.  I'm 51 now and don't hit my long irons well.  I replaced my ancient (Lynx, of all things) wedges.  I was doing all of this to gain a little consistency and stay one step ahead of my son, who had all modern equipment.

 

I started breaking 90 again.  I even went out and shot an 83 with this setup.  My son is breaking 90 now, but still hasn't beaten me head to head.  He's still improving by leaps and bounds and I could tell my irons needed to be next.  The Pings felt nice, but I am not the world's most consistent ball striker, so I knew I was losing strokes on shots I didn't strike perfectly.   I recently bought some Cleveland Launcher XL irons when they went on sale.  They looked very similar to the CBX Zipcore wedges I'd bought and liked.  On my 3rd or 4th time out with these irons I shot my lowest round ever: 81.  Do I get more distance?   Sure.  Maybe a 1/2 club swinging smooth or a full club jumping on it.  But what I really gain is consistency over the older Pings.  For example, I hit a 6-iron approach in my last round I and I could immediately tell I hit it way out on the toe (conformed when I looked at the face).  I immediately said: "that's short".  But it ended up almost pin high.  I might've lost a few yards, whereas I would've lost 20 yards with my old irons.  Also, the soles of these are significantly wider than my old clubs and I'm chunking it much less.  They also launch higher, which could be partially because of the shaft. 

 

All in all, if you're a good ball striker I think the Ping Eye 2 would be a fine iron to play.  If you need a little more help like me, I think modern game improvement irons are probably worth it.  I put it off for a long time, but I'm a believer now. I'm still staying ahead of my son, but the writing is on the wall.  🙂

[Frank Newport]

1 hour ago, dmeeksDC said:

Correct. The number on the bottom of the club means nothing because there is no standard on lofts. All that matters is the loft on the head and length of the shaft. A better way to compare irons of different generations.
 

Often an older 7 iron lines up with a current 8 iron. OEMs do this so players can marvel at how far they can hit an 8 iron vs a 7 iron but they’re not noticing the loft differences. Ping Eye2 heads can be loft adjusted like any club but I would not bend them more than 2 degrees and that would only be to dial in flight window. 

 

Are you saying that there's been no technological advancements in the manufacturing of irons that has increased ball speeds since the  Ping Eye 2 debuted? 

Can you tell that to all the people who complain about all the Players Distance and Game Improvements irons being too "hot"?

 

I'd like to think iron design and manufacturing has improved over the decades beyond just decreasing the loft of each club.

By the way, the Mizuno MX-23 debuted in 2006 while the MP 223 came out 16 years later. They're aimed at similar players and there's only a 1 degree difference between 4-8 irons (9 iron and PW have the same loft). When comparing irons designed for similar players, lofts of "players" and "players forgiveness" irons lofts haven't changed all that much over the years. The so called "loft jacking" is occurring mostly in irons that are aimed at players who require more "help" so I'm guessing there's more going on then just delofting.  

 

[dmeeksDC]

28 minutes ago, Frank Newport said:

 

Are you saying that there's been no technological advancements in the manufacturing of irons that has increased ball speeds since the  Ping Eye 2 debuted? 

Can you tell that to all the people who complain about all the Players Distance and Game Improvements irons being too "hot"?

 

I'd like to think iron design and manufacturing has improved over the decades beyond just decreasing the loft of each club.

By the way, the Mizuno MX-23 debuted in 2006 while the MP 223 came out 16 years later. They're aimed at similar players and there's only a 1 degree difference between 4-8 irons (9 iron and PW have the same loft). When comparing irons designed for similar players, lofts of "players" and "players forgiveness" irons lofts haven't changed all that much over the years. The so called "loft jacking" is occurring mostly in irons that are aimed at players who require more "help" so I'm guessing there's more going on then just delofting.  

 

I didn’t say there have been no technological advancements. The question was about loft progression. What used to be a 7 iron in loft is now roughly an 8 iron. Not with every model out there but certainly a majority of them. 
 

What you’re referring to is the thinning out of the iron faces to both increase flex (and therefore ball speed) AND to retain speed across the face on mishits. That is the help most amateur golfers need. But here is the thing: I have not noticed thin-faced irons go longer than a standard forged iron — if both are hit on the sweet spot. What I have noticed is thin-faced irons will not lose as much speed as contact wanders. 
 

The tech advancements in golf irons mostly have been about helping out on mishits. But if I hit a Ping Eye2 head and a Srixon ZX5 head with the same lofts and shaft length, and I hit them both dead out of the middle, they’re going to go about the same distance. I say “about” because due to different CGs the spin might be different, or the player’s angle of attack on each shot may be different, and that will create distance differences. A lower CG will launch higher, which some players need and others (like me) are trying to lower launch. But loft will be the biggest factor and differences often can be eliminated through minor loft tweaks. 
 

On mishits I would expect the ZX5 to lose less distance than an Eye2. But this is why pros don’t care about thin-faced irons and play the ZX7 (straight up forged cavity back) instead of the thinner insert face of the ZX5. They hit it out of the middle most of the time. 

[Louis_Posture]

Karsten Solheim's iron designs, including four iterations of the Eye model and the subsequent Eye 2 model all shared the same low heel-high toe shape. It's a shame that following Karsten's retirement his heirs abandoned this design concept. 

[Frank Newport]

34 minutes ago, dmeeksDC said:

I didn’t say there have been no technological advancements. The question was about loft progression. What used to be a 7 iron in loft is now roughly an 8 iron. Not with every model out there but certainly a majority of them. 
 

What you’re referring to is the thinning out of the iron faces to both increase flex (and therefore ball speed) AND to retain speed across the face on mishits. That is the help most amateur golfers need. But here is the thing: I have not noticed thin-faced irons go longer than a standard forged iron — if both are hit on the sweet spot. What I have noticed is thin-faced irons will not lose as much speed as contact wanders. 
 

The tech advancements in golf irons mostly have been about helping out on mishits. But if I hit a Ping Eye2 head and a Srixon ZX5 head with the same lofts and shaft length, and I hit them both dead out of the middle, they’re going to go about the same distance. I say “about” because due to different CGs the spin might be different, or the player’s angle of attack on each shot may be different, and that will create distance differences. A lower CG will launch higher, which some players need and others (like me) are trying to lower launch. But loft will be the biggest factor and differences often can be eliminated through minor loft tweaks. 
 

On mishits I would expect the ZX5 to lose less distance than an Eye2. But this is why pros don’t care about thin-faced irons and play the ZX7 (straight up forged cavity back) instead of the thinner insert face of the ZX5. They hit it out of the middle most of the time. 

 

Thank you. That's a much more nuanced response then I expected and I appreciate it. It just gets a little tiresome when other posters accuse OEMs of "loft jacking" without accepting that there's more to the modern design of current PD, GI, and SGI irons then just lowering lofts. It's also annoying to read so many posts claiming equipment hasn't improved over the decades. I'll accept that all OEMs overhype their equipment through marketing and every new release isn't likely to improve your performance.  As someone who took 15 years off from golf I got a very distinct experience of how much things have changed since the early 2000s so I'm disappointed to see so many people dismiss the technological advancements throughout the whole golf industry especially design and manufacturing.

[Frank Newport]

44 minutes ago, Louis_Posture said:

Karsten Solheim's iron designs, including four iterations of the Eye model and the subsequent Eye 2 model all shared the same low heel-high toe shape. It's a shame that following Karsten's retirement his heirs abandoned this design concept. 

Is there a reason why that design is no longer popular among OEMs? Is there an OEM still embracing that design?

[hammergolf]

I’ve said this before, but loft for loft and shaft length for shaft length I think the eye 2 holds its own. 

[Louis_Posture]

1 hour ago, Frank Newport said:

Is there a reason why that design is no longer popular among OEMs? Is there an OEM still embracing that design?

Karsten understood the benefits of perimeter weighting. His low heel-high toe club head shape provided him the enlarged space he needed (compared to the muscle back irons popular at the time) without the club head appearing too bulky. There are probably also some aerodynamic benefits to this head shape. The shape certainly has a graceful appearance.

Sadly, once OEM's began using computer aided design (CAD) club heads became larger, box shaped, bulkier to look at and swing.

[Chunkitgood]

13 hours ago, JD3 said:

Only for nostalgia reasons would someone use them imo. High lofts and spin, plus large offset will make the ball pop up in the air. Very noticeable loss in distance. Over the years OEMs have come up with ways to make even higher MoI irons but with stronger lofts, less offset, less spin and overall better, even bladey, look at address.  

All true…if you don’t have the ability to hit the ball properly.

 

6 hours ago, Frank Newport said:

 

Thank you. That's a much more nuanced response then I expected and I appreciate it. It just gets a little tiresome when other posters accuse OEMs of "loft jacking" without accepting that there's more to the modern design of current PD, GI, and SGI irons then just lowering lofts. It's also annoying to read so many posts claiming equipment hasn't improved over the decades. I'll accept that all OEMs overhype their equipment through marketing and every new release isn't likely to improve your performance.  As someone who took 15 years off from golf I got a very distinct experience of how much things have changed since the early 2000s so I'm disappointed to see so many people dismiss the technological advancements throughout the whole golf industry especially design and manufacturing.

 

The fact is lofts were jacked to compensate for the defects in modern club design (that is, the “GI” features).

[kwcsports]

I loved the Eye 2's and still have a set. I go back and forth between them and my old Parallax irons. 

[Dodge1]

I played a set of Eye 2’s until about five years ago. They still held their own pretty well compared to modern irons. Loft for loft comparison they were a little shorter but not by a huge amount. 

[sheepdawg]

I never cared much for Ping irons but In the late 80s and 90s my bag always had an Eye2 1 iron in it. Man I could smoke that club and the course I played then had 5 or 6 tee shots that had to be in the fairway so the 1 iron was the ticket. I doubt I could get it airborne now.

[Louis_Posture]

11 hours ago, sheepdawg said:

I never cared much for Ping irons but In the late 80s and 90s my bag always had an Eye2 1 iron in it. Man I could smoke that club and the course I played then had 5 or 6 tee shots that had to be in the fairway so the 1 iron was the ticket. I doubt I could get it airborne now.

In 1992 I caddied for a local pro who was paired with 16 year old Tiger Woods in a 36 hole US Open Sectional qualifier. That day Tiger swung his Ping Eye 2 1-iron off more par 4 and par 5 tee boxes than he did his driver. His shots with it were incredibly high trajectory and carried approximately 270 yards.

[tatertot]

14 hours ago, Dodge1 said:

I played a set of Eye 2’s until about five years ago. They still held their own pretty well compared to modern irons. Loft for loft comparison they were a little shorter but not by a huge amount. 

They're still my "winter" set ... come October, when the weather get's cold here in the heartland, the Eye2's come out. They're a full club short, but I still look forward to playing them for a couple months a year.

[Louis_Posture]

Standard length for Ping Eye 2-Eye 2+ was 37.75" 5-iron.

[mrdctaylor]

1 hour ago, tatertot said:

They're still my "winter" set ... come October, when the weather get's cold here in the heartland, the Eye2's come out. They're a full club short, but I still look forward to playing them for a couple months a year.

Out of curiosity: why do you have a “winter” set?  That’s a new concept to me. 

[HoosierHacker89]

I've tried and tried and tried to make the eye 2 irons my regular clubs in the past, but I can't say ive ever been fully comfortable with them. I've owned 15+ sets over the last 18 years, and I can't ever seem to get it right. I've put s300, s400, zz lite, added length, taken away length, orange dot all the way to blue dot. I've added swing weight to multiple sets, but I've never loved them.  I'll take a set of G series irons over eye 2's any day. It feels blasphemous to say, but my desire and my experiences haven't lined up to produce great results. 

[tatertot]

1 hour ago, mrdctaylor said:

Out of curiosity: why do you have a “winter” set?  That’s a new concept to me. 

Ground gets frozen ... lots of acorns, leaves, etc. Expectations gets lowered. A chance to break out some older clubs I enjoy playing with when scoring isn't as important.

 

Basically, an excuse I give my wife to have more clubs.

[DCCarpenter]

@HoosierHacker89 I am on my 3rd try trying to make the Ping Eye 2’s work now.

 

I have Eye 2 + in green dot this time , I’ve tried a bunch of different shafts as well. This time I started with a grab bag of shafts and I am putting True Temper elevate in them , not sure on shaft for the 3 iron (or 2 if I go for it) maybe a LA golf graphite. 
 

Working on some swing changes that are helping the hook , so far the offset isn’t killing me like it did on my last try with them. 
 

When I am hitting the Ping Eye 2’s well nothing feels better even the forged blades I have played. 

[AngryGilmore]

16 hours ago, tatertot said:

Ground gets frozen ... lots of acorns, leaves, etc. Expectations gets lowered. A chance to break out some older clubs I enjoy playing with when scoring isn't as important.

 

Basically, an excuse I give my wife to have more clubs.

As someone who plays in the midwest, I can vouch for this.  Changes in turf = changes in turf interaction of clubs.  

[cardoustie]

My eye 2 +no+ SW in 53* goes the same distance as my 53* Ping OG glide … same length and SF 125s shaft

 

I’d buy a set with heavier heads and their modern power spec lofts …. I need a 38” 7i at 31* and good to go

[Dodge1]

23 hours ago, tatertot said:

They're still my "winter" set ... come October, when the weather get's cold here in the heartland, the Eye2's come out. They're a full club short, but I still look forward to playing them for a couple months a year.

I keep looking for a set of the beryllium to come up for sale to use as a second set.  They are still the best looking irons I’ve ever seen. 

[PARETO]

I think any early single casted Ping iron from Eye2 - ISI (anything after Eye and before i3) can 100% play today. The right shaft and lie is the key. Whether you hit an old school spinning Eye2 8 iron to 150 yards or a low spinning high bomb with a new school PW to that same 150 yards, it’s personal. 
Karsten was waaaay forward thinking so early cast Ping irons were engineered to just flat out play. Add a modern ball with a classic Ping iron (with the right shaft) and go knock down some flags. 
I’m a huge fan of nerding out and spending money on new golf tech. I’ve played so many sets of irons over the years that I’ve lost track of what I’ve bought (and then sold). But 1 thing remains and 1 set gets the title of my “true gamers”. 4-L ISI BeNi Nickel with S300. No iron I’ve had ever games like these. The yardage consistency is crazy. No speed slots, fast goo, tungsten or jacked lofts BUT, what I get is like the 8 iron strike you see in the pic from just today in the SIM. 155 yard 8 iron with enough spin to hold and an awesome ball flight. I’ll take that All DAY. 
Plus you could literally run over these clubs and they survive to play like nothing happened. There is no question I have iron sets in my office that can get a PW to that same 150 but just not consistently at all. Some fly, some knuckle, some dive bomb. 

Classic Ping is no joke. 

[bullsfan]

They stack up just fine. I play the Eye 2 Plus's I bought back in 1994 and for the exception of my Woods, wedges, and putter, they work. I have tried other Irons from Ping, Titleist, Mizuno, and they look great in the bag, but they don't provide the confidence and the playability the Eye 2's provide and I can hit any shot that I need to hit given the situation. Don't drink the Kool-Aid if you still use them and enjoy them.