Ping i530 Leaked Photo

[SwingBlues]

On 3/11/2024 at 3:24 AM, karstens_ghost said:

Maybe there's a reason they left a screw cap on the iron?

 

Maybe put some Gillette Foamy in there?

 

Sigh. Too much Kiwi tv 😂

[karstens_ghost]

2 hours ago, SwingBlues said:

 

Sigh. Too much Kiwi tv 😂

 

Mate, that was straight up NBC Prime Time in the States for me.

 

The more you know...

[Negncic]

Best guess. Compared to the I230’s, more forgiving, less forgiving, or similar?

[Carolina Golfer 2]

1 hour ago, Negncic said:

Best guess. Compared to the I230’s, more forgiving, less forgiving, or similar?

Definitely more forgiving than I230 in my experience. 

[J_Tizzle]

1 hour ago, Negncic said:

Best guess. Compared to the I230’s, more forgiving, less forgiving, or similar?

 

If they're anything like the i525s they're going to be wildly more forgiving than the i230s.  I compared them, and on same strikes I was about 7-8 yards longer with the 525, but with similar mishits, I was 20 yards longer and straighter.  No comparison to me.  I think everyone could improve if they played these player distance irons, very few golfers actually need a club like the i230s (IMHO), but people talk themselves into the struggle bus.

[Negncic]

Thank you for the responses guys. 

[blazman11]

9 hours ago, J_Tizzle said:

 

If they're anything like the i525s they're going to be wildly more forgiving than the i230s.  I compared them, and on same strikes I was about 7-8 yards longer with the 525, but with similar mishits, I was 20 yards longer and straighter.  No comparison to me.  I think everyone could improve if they played these player distance irons, very few golfers actually need a club like the i230s (IMHO), but people talk themselves into the struggle bus.

 

 

Quite literally, any distance variance is 100% due to the loft difference between the two sets.  The standard 7 iron in i530 is 1/2 a degree stronger than the standard 6 iron in an i230.  The reason why OEM's stamp a 7 on a 6 iron is because some people fall for it.  

 

I personally don't care what number manufacturers stamp on an iron.  If Ping wants to call a 29 degree a 7 iron, fine, knock yourself oujt.  But the reason why they do it is because people like you fall for it and say OMG the i530 7 iron just flew 20 yards further than my i230 7 iron.  if you make the statement, X iron "was 20 yards longer and straighter" then you are either A) the worst ball striker on the planet and hitting every iron all over the face, B) hitting vastly different shafts in each set C) hitting a vastly different lofted club in one set vs another or D) hitting one iron in the heel consistently for whatever reason which always reduces distance no matter the iron set.   There literally can be no other explanation.  

 

When I hit the i530 7 iron, I brought my i230 6 iron to test against.  There were just minor differences.  196 for i230 6 iron with 1.45 smash and 85 mph vs 199 for i530 7 iron with 1.45 smash and 86 mph.  I did come away with a favorable impression of the i530, but to proclaim they are so much better than the i230 is just not correct.  The i530 are a full + club stronger and slightly larger than the i230.  The i230 are practically shovels as it is and you make them sound Blueprint T small.  Just get a grip man and please do some research before you start offering proclamations to others that the i230 = blade forgiveness.  

[J_Tizzle]

8 hours ago, blazman11 said:

 

 

Quite literally, any distance variance is 100% due to the loft difference between the two sets.  The standard 7 iron in i530 is 1/2 a degree stronger than the standard 6 iron in an i230.  The reason why OEM's stamp a 7 on a 6 iron is because some people fall for it.  

 

I personally don't care what number manufacturers stamp on an iron.  If Ping wants to call a 29 degree a 7 iron, fine, knock yourself oujt.  But the reason why they do it is because people like you fall for it and say OMG the i530 7 iron just flew 20 yards further than my i230 7 iron.  if you make the statement, X iron "was 20 yards longer and straighter" then you are either A) the worst ball striker on the planet and hitting every iron all over the face, B) hitting vastly different shafts in each set C) hitting a vastly different lofted club in one set vs another or D) hitting one iron in the heel consistently for whatever reason which always reduces distance no matter the iron set.   There literally can be no other explanation.  

 

When I hit the i530 7 iron, I brought my i230 6 iron to test against.  There were just minor differences.  196 for i230 6 iron with 1.45 smash and 85 mph vs 199 for i530 7 iron with 1.45 smash and 86 mph.  I did come away with a favorable impression of the i530, but to proclaim they are so much better than the i230 is just not correct.  The i530 are a full + club stronger and slightly larger than the i230.  The i230 are practically shovels as it is and you make them sound Blueprint T small.  Just get a grip man and please do some research before you start offering proclamations to others that the i230 = blade forgiveness.  

 

HAHAHA, someone needs to take their chill pills this morning, or lay off the late night drinks...

 

I can appreciate the extra length on solid strikes can be due to the loft differences between a i230 and the i525 and that a 7i in the i525 is kind of like a 6.5i in the i230s (even though I have the i525 in standard loft so the 7i is 30.5* and the i230s powerspec at 31.5* so they're closer in loft than not) with the same shafts (Project X LZ 6.0 1/2" long) and I even swing weighted them exactly the same with the same grips etc...  So the comparison was pretty even for me between the two (i525 being 1* stronger).  So with that said, the distance difference between the two was not only due to the stronger loft, but much more to the i525s being slightly hotter.

 

I am typically a higher spin player, so the lower spin from the i525s keeps the spin down on mishits (my normal miss is slightly low and slightly off the heel which ends up being very spinny for my delivery) which in turn makes them carry much more consistent distances (compared to my "playing distances") on mishits for me vs the i230s did.  

 

I've got my i525s set to where I cover distances from 205 - 120 covered with 6-U allowing me to carry an extra wedge.  So I don't really care what number is on the bottom of the club, I just want my distances covered, and to me, I couldn't do that with the i230s without adding a 5i and losing my extra wedge.  

 

The i525s (and I'd assume the i530s) are better for ME, so please don't take my assessment as an overall sweeping declaration comparing the two.  Sure they're not blades, but they're also not SGI.  I think they're the best of both worlds for us avg golfers that are good enough (+0.4 handicap) but also that can't play/practice much due to life so I need that forgiveness and that forgiveness comes in a pretty good looking package so its the best of both worlds.

 

But maybe I'm just that guy that loves to say "oh I hit my 7i from 190 I guess"...  

 

 

 

 

 

[hammergolf]

10 hours ago, blazman11 said:

 

 

Quite literally, any distance variance is 100% due to the loft difference between the two sets.  The standard 7 iron in i530 is 1/2 a degree stronger than the standard 6 iron in an i230.  The reason why OEM's stamp a 7 on a 6 iron is because some people fall for it.  

 

I personally don't care what number manufacturers stamp on an iron.  If Ping wants to call a 29 degree a 7 iron, fine, knock yourself oujt.  But the reason why they do it is because people like you fall for it and say OMG the i530 7 iron just flew 20 yards further than my i230 7 iron.  if you make the statement, X iron "was 20 yards longer and straighter" then you are either A) the worst ball striker on the planet and hitting every iron all over the face, B) hitting vastly different shafts in each set C) hitting a vastly different lofted club in one set vs another or D) hitting one iron in the heel consistently for whatever reason which always reduces distance no matter the iron set.   There literally can be no other explanation.  

 

When I hit the i530 7 iron, I brought my i230 6 iron to test against.  There were just minor differences.  196 for i230 6 iron with 1.45 smash and 85 mph vs 199 for i530 7 iron with 1.45 smash and 86 mph.  I did come away with a favorable impression of the i530, but to proclaim they are so much better than the i230 is just not correct.  The i530 are a full + club stronger and slightly larger than the i230.  The i230 are practically shovels as it is and you make them sound Blueprint T small.  Just get a grip man and please do some research before you start offering proclamations to others that the i230 = blade forgiveness.  

You bring up a very good point. I know many fitters on YouTube won’t do it because it may create a bad look for manufacturers. However, as you said they could take a “player’s” iron and a “player’s distance” iron that have the same loft and test. In fact, I would really like to see them include a blade at the same loft as well. It would be very interesting data to see.

[J_Tizzle]

1 hour ago, hammergolf said:

You bring up a very good point. I know many fitters on YouTube won’t do it because it may create a bad look for manufacturers. However, as you said they could take a “player’s” iron and a “player’s distance” iron that have the same loft and test. In fact, I would really like to see them include a blade at the same loft as well. It would be very interesting data to see.

 

I mean does that really matter?  There are other things that impact distance and playability minus just loft.  Like I said earlier, I compared the i230 and the i525 in vey similar lofts and the i525 being notably longer and consistent (for me), so its not just the extra 1* of loft.  As well as the decreased loft being part of the design of player distance irons, that they don't create stopping power with spin, they create it with decent angle.  So the irons inherently are designed to hit the ball higher, so without the lower loft the performance would suffer.  

 

I mean I know players distance irons get lots of negative feedback from the "purists" but the technology (to me) cannot be argued because they give solidish golfers a GI performance from a players profile, assuming the lower spin fits you (or at least doesn't hinder you). 

 

I know my brother who is a low spin golfer really struggled with the i500s because he just hit the hottest shots in the world with them, like I'm talking 160-170 yard PWs that couldn't hold a green etc..  But he's not who the irons were designed for because he needs the spin to hold greens, not the decent angle.  

 

Horses for courses.

Edited March 16 by J_Tizzle

[MMB1500]

3 hours ago, J_Tizzle said:

But maybe I'm just that guy that loves to say "oh I hit my 7i from 190 I guess"...  

 

Ask any fitter. That is what a lot of golfers seemingly want, hence the iron loft arms race.  

Edited March 16 by MMB1500

[hammergolf]

45 minutes ago, J_Tizzle said:

 

I mean does that really matter?  There are other things that impact distance and playability minus just loft.  Like I said earlier, I compared the i230 and the i525 in vey similar lofts and the i525 being notably longer and consistent (for me), so its not just the extra 1* of loft.  As well as the decreased loft being part of the design of player distance irons, that they don't create stopping power with spin, they create it with decent angle.  So the irons inherently are designed to hit the ball higher, so without the lower loft the performance would suffer.  

 

I mean I know players distance irons get lots of negative feedback from the "purists" but the technology (to me) cannot be argued because they give solidish golfers a GI performance from a players profile, assuming the lower spin fits you (or at least doesn't hinder you). 

 

I know my brother who is a low spin golfer really struggled with the i500s because he just hit the hottest shots in the world with them, like I'm talking 160-170 yard PWs that couldn't hold a green etc..  But he's not who the irons were designed for because he needs the spin to hold greens, not the decent angle.  

 

Horses for courses.

I wasn’t referring to your club choice in any way. I was merely stating it would be great to see data on what the performance actually is on similar designs at the same lofts and shaft lengths. 

[J_Tizzle]

2 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

I wasn’t referring to your club choice in any way. I was merely stating it would be great to see data on what the performance actually is on similar designs at the same lofts and shaft lengths. 

 

Thats fair, I guess from my experience for very similarly lofted irons, the players distance (hence the name) are longer (and at least more forgiving for me).  If people want to attribute that to the loft of the clubs vs total performance (descent angle/stopping power/spin/etc.), thats up to them.  

[hammergolf]

5 minutes ago, J_Tizzle said:

 

Thats fair, I guess from my experience for very similarly lofted irons, the players distance (hence the name) are longer (and at least more forgiving for me).  If people want to attribute that to the loft of the clubs vs total performance (descent angle/stopping power/spin/etc.), thats up to them.  

I think it’s very player dependent. However, at this point it’s just a theory either way. I’d really like to see a YT guy like Ask Golf Nut do a deep dive with a 30* one piece cavity, hollow players distance, and game improvement iron to see the data.

[J_Tizzle]

8 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

I think it’s very player dependent. However, at this point it’s just a theory either way. I’d really like to see a YT guy like Ask Golf Nut do a deep dive with a 30* one piece cavity, hollow players distance, and game improvement iron to see the data.

 

I mean not to sound rude, but I think we all know the differences.  One will be most forgiving and longest, one will be slightly worse in both, and the 3rd will be the worst in both.  It's the science of how the clubs are designed...

[hammergolf]

5 minutes ago, J_Tizzle said:

 

I mean not to sound rude, but I think we all know the differences.  One will be most forgiving and longest, one will be slightly worse in both, and the 3rd will be the worst in both.  It's the science of how the clubs are designed...

Is it? Not saying it is or isn’t, but would be interesting to see the data to back up either claim.

[J_Tizzle]

5 minutes ago, hammergolf said:

Is it? Not saying it is or isn’t, but would be interesting to see the data to back up either claim.

 

I do agree, I always love information like that.  I guess my thought process is, if the i530 isn't longer and more forgiving than the i230, which should be longer and more forgiving than the Blueprints, whats the point of having all the different sets of irons?

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, J_Tizzle said:

 

I do agree, I always love information like that.  I guess my thought process is, if the i530 isn't longer and more forgiving than the i230, which should be longer and more forgiving than the Blueprints, whats the point of having all the different sets of irons?

I think other factor for those tests are the testers usually are pretty neutral in their delivery.  Most of us aren’t.  Which is why they have irons with similar lofts, and different constructions 🙂

[mogc60]

10 minutes ago, J_Tizzle said:

 

I do agree, I always love information like that.  I guess my thought process is, if the i530 isn't longer and more forgiving than the i230, which should be longer and more forgiving than the Blueprints, whats the point of having all the different sets of irons?

GolfWRX 

[Konklifer]

So…has anyone hit these?

Edited March 16 by Konklifer

[hammergolf]

3 hours ago, J_Tizzle said:

 

I do agree, I always love information like that.  I guess my thought process is, if the i530 isn't longer and more forgiving than the i230, which should be longer and more forgiving than the Blueprints, whats the point of having all the different sets of irons?

Great question. In my opinion, I think what’s happened with iron design in the last 6-8 years is that manufacturers have created a launch condition that used to be called a flier 10 years ago. In essence a high flying shot that has low spin that goes much further. We’ve all hit those shots with a blade, forged cavity, or one piece GI iron 10 years ago from the rough that flew 15yds too far. I’ve read reviews and seen some reviews that have shown the front to back distance drop off on one piece irons was better but showed the left right dispersion was better with hollow or multi-piece irons. Hopefully Ask Golf Nut, Cool Clubs, or someone else could do a deep dive test to see what the differences actually are at the same loft, shaft, length, and flex.

[hammergolf]

3 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I think other factor for those tests are the testers usually are pretty neutral in their delivery.  Most of us aren’t.  Which is why they have irons with similar lofts, and different constructions 🙂

Definitely the case, a low launch/spin player would really struggle with some of the low loft low win rocket launchers yet a high launch/spin player would see great benefits using those type of clubs.

[realmfg]

Mark Crossfield has a ton of videos testing this.  He is pretty big on loft for loft is the key and the rest is all marketing.

[Zach.buckler23]

Super clean iron!

[Brobespierre]

 

 

Lots and lots of golfers are going to swing their 7 iron between 75 and 85 miles an hour and they are going to have an over the top delivery, with an open face to compensate.

 

this golfer is going to grab an i230 and get in the bay and probably hit the 7 iron 150-160 with a center-ish strike because of the open face, but when they miss off the toe because they have a left path with an open face, they are probably carrying the i230 7 iron 130-140 yards.

 

the i525/i530 is going to have much more distance retention on those low and toe misses. It’s also going to spin less with the hollow construction.

 

so there is a large number of golfers who will see a benefit from this type of iron in terms of distance which will means reaching more greens.

 

this doesn’t even include the ACTUAL target audience, someone who probably played or would play the i230 but doesn’t swing fast enough to carry the i230 for proper gapping anymore, even on very efficient strikes, like women or seniors.

 

For reasons good or bad, these golfers don’t fit as well into the G430 or just don’t like the look of them.

 

Same thing with jacked lofts. Lofts aren’t increasing because people at PING are twirling their mustaches about selling people fake upgrades, it’s because people at PING: 1. Have access to Arccos data now that shows that most golfers short everything and need more distance regardless of what they think or say, and 2., because OEM’s are a lot better at building a club head that maintains spin and descent angle so if they bump up the loft, it’s free distance for people….buying distance irons.

 

if you hit the i530 7 iron 200 yards, then it’s probably not the iron for you. 
 

and if you think that the i230 is more than forgiving enough then you’re probably a good ball striker and the i530 isn’t the iron for you.

 

But it probably is a good iron for a lot of people.

[USGA22]

35 minutes ago, Brobespierre said:

 

 

Lots and lots of golfers are going to swing their 7 iron between 75 and 85 miles an hour and they are going to have an over the top delivery, with an open face to compensate.

 

this golfer is going to grab an i230 and get in the bay and probably hit the 7 iron 150-160 with a center-ish strike because of the open face, but when they miss off the toe because they have a left path with an open face, they are probably carrying the i230 7 iron 130-140 yards.

 

the i525/i530 is going to have much more distance retention on those low and toe misses. It’s also going to spin less with the hollow construction.

 

so there is a large number of golfers who will see a benefit from this type of iron in terms of distance which will means reaching more greens.

 

this doesn’t even include the ACTUAL target audience, someone who probably played or would play the i230 but doesn’t swing fast enough to carry the i230 for proper gapping anymore, even on very efficient strikes, like women or seniors.

 

For reasons good or bad, these golfers don’t fit as well into the G430 or just don’t like the look of them.

 

Same thing with jacked lofts. Lofts aren’t increasing because people at PING are twirling their mustaches about selling people fake upgrades, it’s because people at PING: 1. Have access to Arccos data now that shows that most golfers short everything and need more distance regardless of what they think or say, and 2., because OEM’s are a lot better at building a club head that maintains spin and descent angle so if they bump up the loft, it’s free distance for people….buying distance irons.

 

if you hit the i530 7 iron 200 yards, then it’s probably not the iron for you. 
 

and if you think that the i230 is more than forgiving enough then you’re probably a good ball striker and the i530 isn’t the iron for you.

 

But it probably is a good iron for a lot of people.

This was awesome! Well written- thank you 

[noubrat]

Great to see more brands going with less excessive badging on their irons

[Pnwpingi210]

3 hours ago, Brobespierre said:

 

 

Lots and lots of golfers are going to swing their 7 iron between 75 and 85 miles an hour and they are going to have an over the top delivery, with an open face to compensate.

 

this golfer is going to grab an i230 and get in the bay and probably hit the 7 iron 150-160 with a center-ish strike because of the open face, but when they miss off the toe because they have a left path with an open face, they are probably carrying the i230 7 iron 130-140 yards.

 

the i525/i530 is going to have much more distance retention on those low and toe misses. It’s also going to spin less with the hollow construction.

 

so there is a large number of golfers who will see a benefit from this type of iron in terms of distance which will means reaching more greens.

 

this doesn’t even include the ACTUAL target audience, someone who probably played or would play the i230 but doesn’t swing fast enough to carry the i230 for proper gapping anymore, even on very efficient strikes, like women or seniors.

 

For reasons good or bad, these golfers don’t fit as well into the G430 or just don’t like the look of them.

 

Same thing with jacked lofts. Lofts aren’t increasing because people at PING are twirling their mustaches about selling people fake upgrades, it’s because people at PING: 1. Have access to Arccos data now that shows that most golfers short everything and need more distance regardless of what they think or say, and 2., because OEM’s are a lot better at building a club head that maintains spin and descent angle so if they bump up the loft, it’s free distance for people….buying distance irons.

 

if you hit the i530 7 iron 200 yards, then it’s probably not the iron for you. 
 

and if you think that the i230 is more than forgiving enough then you’re probably a good ball striker and the i530 isn’t the iron for you.

 

But it probably is a good iron for a lot of people.

Great example of target demographic.  Good post.

[Hateslowplay]

just had a fitting and tried out all the new Ping irons.  Not bagging the big G730, but they are not quite for me.  Easy to hit, but the footprint was too big to my eye. The Blueprints felt great - but it was the i530's that got the nod. Look good - feel good - hit it good. Of course that's just me - but I was highly impressed. Been a while since I had Ping irons in the bag, but this was an easy decision. 

[MMB1500]

8 hours ago, noubrat said:

Great to see more brands going with less excessive badging on their irons

 

I really respect Ping for going this route, though they're by no means the only ones. They've finally learned that less is more. Their irons now look very classy, but there was a 10-15 year period where, frankly, they were hideous (think Ping G5, G10 etc.).