Ping i530 Leaked Photo

[ajbillings]

Never going to please everyone but loving the looks of the last few Ping irons releases..i59, i230, Blueprint S/T, i530 all look 🔥. I used to play Ping because they won out in the fitting bay and the extra forgiveness always helped..played i500 for a while, but if these sound (i500 was an excellent iron for me at the time, but pretty clicky) as good as they feel they should do really well

[Strategery]

1 hour ago, ajbillings said:

Never going to please everyone

i210 pleased everyone.

[Yzmerf]

Im really hoping the lower CG helps my low miss. I live on the bottom 4 groves.

[J_Tizzle]

On 2/6/2024 at 6:33 PM, Ltarin65 said:

I have come to Love my i525's at least so far indoors on trackman.  IMHO anyone talking true feel on a hollow body iron is just so personal.  plus if your playing this model your not hear for the feel, i want performance and looks! that is why i picked the 525.  i will admit the first few times i hit them it was rough, but when those long irons fly like nothing i have hit before and the carry distance is crazy good and look great with minimal offset! SOLD.  Im a picker and i dont feel i have been punished any more than the 790's i had on low strikes.

 

This is exactly my opinion on my i525s.  My misses are typically low on the clubface and when I tried to play the i230s I quickly realized how forgiving the i525s truly are in comparison.  I mean I'm talking the i230s were like 20 yards shorter on the same mishit.  I don't care what they sound like lol.

[hammergolf]

Surprised these have been up on their site for a week but haven’t seen any reviews yet. 

[Playin2Games]

38 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

Surprised these have been up on their site for a week but haven’t seen any reviews yet. 

You probably won’t until after March 7th 

[hammergolf]

30 minutes ago, Playin2Games said:

You probably won’t until after March 7th 

Thanks, hopefully they have fixed the sound/feel issue. However, seeing the pics on their site they are still hollow so I’m thinking maybe not.

[ibluetooth]

On 1/31/2024 at 4:14 PM, Strategery said:

Loft police here...

 

 

My i210 PW is 45*, same as i525. And now i530 is looking like 42*? G430 is 41*. What?!!

 

My friend plays G430 and king kongs his short irons compared to me. I tell him why but he keeps complaining he is too strong.

I wonder if the trend in loft strengthening has anything to do with the incoming ball restrictions?  Maybe they have to strengthen lofts in order to counteract the potential loss of distance with the new balls? I thought there’s at least 1 more product cycle for companies like PING before the new ball rules comes into play, but maybe they are really thinking ahead here.

 

Seems like Callaway is also doing this loft progression with their new AI Smoke Irons.

[Konklifer]

I know they were revealed at the PGA show, but surprised they were put on the site so soon before an official announcement. 

[DutchGolf]

1 hour ago, ibluetooth said:

I wonder if the trend in loft strengthening has anything to do with the incoming ball restrictions?  Maybe they have to strengthen lofts in order to counteract the potential loss of distance with the new balls? I thought there’s at least 1 more product cycle for companies like PING before the new ball rules comes into play, but maybe they are really thinking ahead here.

 

Seems like Callaway is also doing this loft progression with their new AI Smoke Irons.

 

The loss in distance for amateur players on irons due to the ball restrictions is negligible. 

 

It is an overall trend to decrease lofts, mostly due to new technology allowing lower lofts with similar peak height. It increases distance but reduces spin. Distance sells. And in their defense, I'd say the players targeted with these clubs typically benefit more from the added distance, and the height is sufficient to get the ball to stop on the greens they play at (i.e., non-concrete). 

 

That said, I find it cheating when the manufacturers have to add 2 gap wedges to the set to cover the loft gaps. i530 is not doing that though.

Edited February 27 by DutchGolf

[mpm1983]

Learned about these for the first time today & I am excited. 

 

I play a set of i200s. Picked up a i525 4-iron a couple months ago. Think it’s great - after I got some swings in with it. 

 

Ping really pushed hard on the i525 visuals of making it look like a blade (a bit too much imho). At first, I honestly thought the head size might’ve been smaller than the i200s. Took some adjustment and hitting with it to actually believe they offered decent forgiveness. 

 

Having seen the pics of the i530s - coupled with my impressions of the i525 - I would bet the major changes are more visual than technical. Little more offset. Top line look a little thicker. Still have it look like a players irons, but roll back a little how far they went with that. 

 

Say this having also hit the blueprint s for the first time this past week. Think Ping absolutely nailed how those look. One of the best looking irons I’ve ever stood over,  and actually inspires confidence that they are playable - exact opposite effect of the design of the i525s. 

 

See they are promoting the DG Mid with them, too. Would not be surprised if one technical change to the i530s is they are higher launching. i525 does not launch as high as I was expecting.   

[Lefty87]

17 hours ago, mpm1983 said:

Learned about these for the first time today & I am excited. 

 

I play a set of i200s. Picked up a i525 4-iron a couple months ago. Think it’s great - after I got some swings in with it. 

 

Ping really pushed hard on the i525 visuals of making it look like a blade (a bit too much imho). At first, I honestly thought the head size might’ve been smaller than the i200s. Took some adjustment and hitting with it to actually believe they offered decent forgiveness. 

 

Having seen the pics of the i530s - coupled with my impressions of the i525 - I would bet the major changes are more visual than technical. Little more offset. Top line look a little thicker. Still have it look like a players irons, but roll back a little how far they went with that. 

 

Say this having also hit the blueprint s for the first time this past week. Think Ping absolutely nailed how those look. One of the best looking irons I’ve ever stood over,  and actually inspires confidence that they are playable - exact opposite effect of the design of the i525s. 

 

See they are promoting the DG Mid with them, too. Would not be surprised if one technical change to the i530s is they are higher launching. i525 does not launch as high as I was expecting.   

Interesting thoughts on the i525/i530. Not saying what is right or wrong but, in my opinion, the looks from i500 to i530 have all been extremely similar with the exception of minor design changes on the back of the iron. 
 

With this iteration, the feel and acoustics need to be improved or the i5xx range is going to lose some momentum. Everything PING releases is going to be good, but the i5xx range has lacked real transformation since its initial release. 
 

Maybe it’s just my experience, but I played the original i500 and enjoyed them only to be disappointed with the i525. Hoping for a decent upgrade with the i530. 

Edited March 2 by Lefty87

[Carolina Golfer 2]

On 2/27/2024 at 3:03 AM, ibluetooth said:

I wonder if the trend in loft strengthening has anything to do with the incoming ball restrictions?  Maybe they have to strengthen lofts in order to counteract the potential loss of distance with the new balls? I thought there’s at least 1 more product cycle for companies like PING before the new ball rules comes into play, but maybe they are really thinking ahead here.

 

Seems like Callaway is also doing this loft progression with their new AI Smoke Irons.

I don’t think there’s any relation. Irons are more about precision than distance IMO.  
 

[karstens_ghost]

On 2/27/2024 at 10:02 PM, Konklifer said:

I know they were revealed at the PGA show, but surprised they were put on the site so soon before an official announcement. 

 

I can't think of any other product where they post it and it's still on embargo.

[Konklifer]

1 minute ago, karstens_ghost said:

 

I can't think of any other product where they post it and it's still on embargo.

Right? I hope it’s not a bad omen. 
 

These and the DynaPower Forged have me intrigued. 

[Yzmerf]

They look pretty good. At least the 7 iron does. I didn’t try anything but the dynamic gold 120 but based on how it felt and the numbers there really isn’t a need, they aren’t for me. The 7 iron really is a 6. To me the felt like first gen 790s

[Konklifer]

Definitely like the look at address. I think a major leap forward in feel is wishful thinking on my part.

[karstens_ghost]

It will make a nice 4i-hybrid for those that don't want the iCrossover.

[RacineBoxer]

On 2/27/2024 at 3:05 AM, DutchGolf said:

 

 

That said, I find it cheating when the manufacturers have to add 2 gap wedges to the set to cover the loft gaps. i530 is not doing that though.

 

The GW for the i530 is 47 degrees. The previous gen was 50. If I have a 47 degree GW I'm probably going 52 with my next club, which is 2 gap wedges. 

[MMB1500]

5 hours ago, Yzmerf said:

They look pretty good. At least the 7 iron does. I didn’t try anything but the dynamic gold 120 but based on how it felt and the numbers there really isn’t a need, they aren’t for me. The 7 iron really is a 6. To me the felt like first gen 790s

 

No complaints about the look at address, but yeah the lofts are 😵‍💫.

 

How did they feel? 

[Konklifer]

Is 3/5 the official announcement?

[Feelingofgreatness]

Stronger lofts than my g425s.

I'm not really sure where these fit or what they are trying to achieve.

Ping seems confused with the i5xx line.

[Yzmerf]

45 minutes ago, MMB1500 said:

 

No complaints about the look at address, but yeah the lofts are 😵‍💫.

 

How did they feel? 

I’m really probably not the best person to ask. My current set is one of the best feeling irons ever. Think balata ball good. I was prepared to give up some feel for more forgiveness, especially with low strikes. I never did hit one that felt even remotely good even though some were decent numbers. Just to harsh for me. Feel is very subjective though so don’t let me sway your opinion. 

[darrenk]

With all the talk about lofts, I think things need to be understood and accepted to a greater degree on both sides.  Does the consumer want a set that starts with the number three on the bottom and ends with a P?  I mean this as this seems to be a huge issue for folks, I.e that 7 is essentially a 5…….why do we care what the number says on the iron?  We aren’t really adding wedges, we are adding clubs that used to be called a P or a 9, and now GW 1, or GW2 ect. no different other than some shaft length differences.  
from an OEM side, why do they insist on retaining their numbering and club lengths, the number was never a meaningless thing, it was  “I expect a club with this loft to go this distance”, this isn’t the case but we are to blame apparently because their data must show that people want to hit a 7 iron 250 yards and if they do, they choose that iron.  We all kind of compare things to historical numbering that we want but the golfer starting today has no reference for what we used to know a three iron as being.  At this point, take away the number and do the Hogan loft thing or just call the club today that goes the distance of a 1980 4 iron a 4 iron regardless of whether it is a today 6 iron.    I also understand the peak height thing but again, this really isn’t how most golfers think of fitting, they think of distances and how do I spread the number of irons I have to play with between my sand wedge and 5 wood or weakest hybrid.  So, that’s the question to the group, what do we actually want, things to go back to how we were pre 2000, but the same loft will just go a bit higher or just care less about the number on the club?

[JohnKHawk]

11 hours ago, darrenk said:

With all the talk about lofts, I think things need to be understood and accepted to a greater degree on both sides.  Does the consumer want a set that starts with the number three on the bottom and ends with a P?  I mean this as this seems to be a huge issue for folks, I.e that 7 is essentially a 5…….why do we care what the number says on the iron?  We aren’t really adding wedges, we are adding clubs that used to be called a P or a 9, and now GW 1, or GW2 ect. no different other than some shaft length differences.  
from an OEM side, why do they insist on retaining their numbering and club lengths, the number was never a meaningless thing, it was  “I expect a club with this loft to go this distance”, this isn’t the case but we are to blame apparently because their data must show that people want to hit a 7 iron 250 yards and if they do, they choose that iron.  We all kind of compare things to historical numbering that we want but the golfer starting today has no reference for what we used to know a three iron as being.  At this point, take away the number and do the Hogan loft thing or just call the club today that goes the distance of a 1980 4 iron a 4 iron regardless of whether it is a today 6 iron.    I also understand the peak height thing but again, this really isn’t how most golfers think of fitting, they think of distances and how do I spread the number of irons I have to play with between my sand wedge and 5 wood or weakest hybrid.  So, that’s the question to the group, what do we actually want, things to go back to how we were pre 2000, but the same loft will just go a bit higher or just care less about the number on the club?

I tend to look at it this way...Not concerned with the numbers on the bottom. If everything gaps correctly & ball stays on green when landed upon then it's all good. I'm at this point primarily a players distance iron guy & yes a buddy or two may jokingly tell me my 6 is the same as his 5 but I don't care & I'm not really offended. I play what works for me & they does the same.

[Brobespierre]

It’s also worth noting a couple of things:

 

Loft jacking is not just about selling more irons to guys in fitting bays who want the 7 iron that flies farthest.

 

It’s also about the very real data that OEM’s now get from Arccos to realize that 90 percent of golfers hit their irons shorter than they think they do. And if you can make a 7 iron fly as far as those golfers think it flies, then they hit more greens. 
 

And I think Ping really wants the i530s to be there for distance, and the easiest way to get a little more distance is to increase the lofts.

 

Not saying anything people haven’t already heard.

 

But,

 

I imagine that if I could look at ping’s internal fitting data, I would see that the increase lofts don’t mess up set gapping for the target audience of these irons as much as people think.

 

 

[hammergolf]

49 minutes ago, JohnKHawk said:

I tend to look at it this way...Not concerned with the numbers on the bottom. If everything gaps correctly & ball stays on green when landed upon then it's all good. I'm at this point primarily a players distance iron guy & yes a buddy or two may jokingly tell me my 6 is the same as his 5 but I don't care & I'm not really offended. I play what works for me & they does the same.

I agree, the only thing that matters on an iron is that it goes a certain “controllable” distance consistently. Essentially what modern iron design has produced are shots that were called fliers with a high trajectory a decade ago. In many ways it’s been an improvement for the majority of golfers. Of course manufacturers have played to the ego’s of golfers by putting a different number on the sole of clubs as well as making shafts longer. If I like the way an iron looks, feels, and performs the number on the bottom of the club is of no consequence. However, there are many that have strong feelings about that number on the sole. 

[jdubya13]

14 hours ago, darrenk said:

With all the talk about lofts, I think things need to be understood and accepted to a greater degree on both sides.  Does the consumer want a set that starts with the number three on the bottom and ends with a P?  I mean this as this seems to be a huge issue for folks, I.e that 7 is essentially a 5…….why do we care what the number says on the iron?  We aren’t really adding wedges, we are adding clubs that used to be called a P or a 9, and now GW 1, or GW2 ect. no different other than some shaft length differences.  
from an OEM side, why do they insist on retaining their numbering and club lengths, the number was never a meaningless thing, it was  “I expect a club with this loft to go this distance”, this isn’t the case but we are to blame apparently because their data must show that people want to hit a 7 iron 250 yards and if they do, they choose that iron.  We all kind of compare things to historical numbering that we want but the golfer starting today has no reference for what we used to know a three iron as being.  At this point, take away the number and do the Hogan loft thing or just call the club today that goes the distance of a 1980 4 iron a 4 iron regardless of whether it is a today 6 iron.    I also understand the peak height thing but again, this really isn’t how most golfers think of fitting, they think of distances and how do I spread the number of irons I have to play with between my sand wedge and 5 wood or weakest hybrid.  So, that’s the question to the group, what do we actually want, things to go back to how we were pre 2000, but the same loft will just go a bit higher or just care less about the number on the club?

I talked about this with my fitter - he said that there’s a good number of guys that say “I don’t care what we have to do, I want to be able to hit a 7 iron XXX yards” and then will explain that they want to keep up, or surpass, their playing partners. 
 

There are a lot of insecure players out there, hence why the common miss is short. 
 

The OEMs love it because they can say their irons go the furthest, all the while trying to come up with a ‘new’ name for their 48° wedge and trying to come up explanations why they “need” to jack the lofts. 
 

[Arlin964]

2 minutes ago, jdubya13 said:

I talked about this with my fitter - he said that there’s a good number of guys that say “I don’t care what we have to do, I want to be able to hit a 7 iron XXX yards” and then will explain that they want to keep up, or surpass, their playing partners. 
 

There are a lot of insecure players out there, hence why the common miss is short. 
 

The OEMs love it because they can say their irons go the furthest, all the while trying to come up with a ‘new’ name for their 48° wedge and trying to come up explanations why they “need” to jack the lofts. 
 

Wow, that's crazy.  I believe you, but that's crazy!  We all have ego involved in the things we do, but I try to limit the ego when it really doesn't serve a positive purpose.

[SwingBlues]

With the new technology in irons these days OEMs are able to place more heavier weights and much lower in the face. For example, my Forged Tec X irons have 64gm of tungsten at the bottom = higher launch

 

To compensate for this, the OEMs will strengthen lofts

 

You won't find more traditional low-tech irons like solid forged blades with jacked up lofts. But these hollow bodied, foam filled irons, OEMs can go crazy with the internal weightings to help the average golfer launch the ball higher and control the height with the lofts

 

Beauty about Ping irons is that they offer Standard, Retro or even more Power lofts so take your pick

 

Edited March 6 by SwingBlues