Looking for a Ping Iron Timeline

[Gomboman]

Ping Lovers

I'm sorry if this has been posted before. I did a quick search and couldn't find anything.

There have been quite a few Ping irons released in the past, Original Ping Eye, Ping Eye 2, Ping Eye 2+, Ping Zing, Ping I3, I3+, I3 Blade, I5, G2, G5, G10, I10, S59, S58, S57 etc. I would like to know what year each iron model was released and retired.

Thanks in advance.....

[frozen_rope]

Ping Eye

Eye 2

Eye 2+

Zing

Zing 2

isi

 

After the isi came the i3, abandoning Karsten's principles by offering O and blade style models. Then in quick succession came several new iron head designs. Karsten's heirs started copying others in the industry, including plastic in the cavity's, blade style irons, no offset, less durable finishes etc... Many of the long time functional aspects of Ping irons were discarded in favor of industry trends, and that is where it stands today.

 

I'm sorry if this has been posted before. I did a quick search and couldn't find anything.

 

There have been quite a few Ping irons released in the past, Original Ping Eye, Ping Eye 2, Ping Eye 2+, Ping Zing, Ping I3, I3+, I3 Blade, I5, G2, G5, G10, I10, S59, S58, S57 etc. I would like to know what year each iron model was released and retired.

 

Thanks in advance.....

[mantan]

This link from the Ping site shows a detailed timeline of all their iron releases...though for some reason it ends with the Eye2

 

http://www.pinggolf.com/classics/irons.aspx

[funkyfedora]

i5 2007

G5 2006-07

G2 2003-06

G2 HL 2003-06

S59 Tour (w/ferrule) 2003

i3+ 2002-03

I3+ BLADE 2002-03

S59 (no ferrule) 2002

i3 Blade 1999-01

i3 O-Size 1999-01

ISI 1996-99

ISI BeCu 1996-99

ISI Nickel 1996-99

ISI-K 1996-99

Zing 2 1994-96

Zing 2 BeCu 1994-96

Zing 1992-94

Zing BeCu 1992-94

Eye2+ 1990-98

Eye2+ BeCu 1990-98

Eye (Patented) 1985-89

Eye2 (Pat. No.) 1984-90

Eye2 BeCu 1983-90

Eye2 (Pat. Pending) 1982-84

Eye (Pat. No.) 1980-85

Karsten I (Made in USA & nbr on sole) 1977-84

Karsten II 1977-84

Karsten III 1977-84

Karsten IV 1977-80

Karsten I (US.Pat. & iron nbr on sole) 1977

Karsten I (Patent No. with dot) 1974-77

Karsten I (Patent pending with dot) 1972-74

Karsten I (Patent pending/no dot) 1968-71

[mat562]

It'll take a better Ping enthusiast than me to tell you about the really old stuff but roughly:

 

Karsten I (in various guises; stampings etc.) - late 60s - 1983/4

 

Karsten II, III & IV - 1977 - 1983/4

 

Eye - 1980 - 1989 (?)

 

Eye 2 - Launched 1982 with V grooves. Changed to box grooves in '84. Produced in steel until 1990. BeCu models '83-90.

 

In mid 1990, the Ping Eye 2+ with modified grooves was launched in both steel and BeCu with modified grooves. A small number of sets were produced in the + guise but with unmodified grooves. Often referred to as the '+ no + model.' Production of the Eye 2+ model officialy ceased in the late 90s, albeit steel headed models continue to be produced to the present day.

 

Zing - 1992-1994 (Steel & BeCu)

 

Zing 2 - 1994-1996

 

ISI -1996 - 1999 (Steel, nickel & BeCu)

 

ISI-K - 1996 -1999

 

i3 - 1999 - 2001

 

i3 O-Size - 1999 -2001

 

i3+ - 2001 - 2003

 

i3+ Blade - 2001 - 2003

 

S59 - 2002

 

S59 Tour - 2003

 

Followed by G2, G5,i5, i10, S58, Rapture, S57 etc.

[Geo]

Ping Eye

Eye 2

Eye 2+

Zing

Zing 2

isi

 

After the isi came the i3, abandoning Karsten's principles by offering O and blade style models. Then in quick succession came several new iron head designs. Karsten's heirs started copying others in the industry, including plastic in the cavity's, blade style irons, no offset, less durable finishes etc... Many of the long time functional aspects of Ping irons were discarded in favor of industry trends, and that is where it stands today.

 

This "Karsten's heirs abandoning his principles" line is getting old.

 

• The bifurcation of the i3 line continues that of the ISI line (where the ISI-K serves as the oversize; possibly to give an aging Karsten a viable choice) and is a trend that every company has embraced. Ping may not have started off with multiple lines of clubs out at one time, but it helps them appeal to more golfers.
  
• The two year product cycle that you continually gripe on is something that apparently started with the Eye 2 V-groove to Eye 2 square groove. Then it started again with the two year cycle from the Eye 2+ to Zing and has pretty much gone like that since (unless you want to count the BeCu heads as a separate release, then it started earlier there aw well). So, the two year life cycle of the clubs is something I'm guessing Mr. Solheim would have approved of.
  
• The "plastic in the cavity's (sic)" was a huge innovative step in golf club manufacturing and is hardly a fad. Tell us all the other companies that had a vibration-reducing, custom weight port before PING started piggy-backing that trend in 1999. Taylormade phoned in an effort a few years later with their 320 and 360 series irons. Callaway used lead tape behind their cavity stickers, but that was primarily to bring target weights within acceptable ranges, and again, that came later (X16?).
  
• The offset argument is one that few people will follow you on. Crazy amounts of offset are no longer a necessity to help the ball get airborn, especially for better players. Manipulation of an iron's COG, shaft technology, ball technology all accomplish this without leaving you with a goosenecked set of irons. I love the ISIs and Eye 2s, but after playing a set of Srixons for the last couple years, it would take some serious time to get used to that much offset again. Even by most people's standard, PING still has too much offset in their clubs.
  
• Durability of the clubs is something you'll be hardpressed to put on the Johns. They still use 17-4 stainless like they did in the old days and do all the stuff in house that they can. And while I'm no metallurgist, I'd bet that industrial regulations are different now than they were 20 years ago. Odds are, they probably can't do things exactly the same way they did them in the 80's, but odds are they pollute less now than they did then too. It's a greener world and whatnot. :pardon:
  

 

Now, maybe I don't have the insider's perspective that you do but from the cheap seats it looks like the Karstens are doing just fine and are probably more loyal to their father/grandfather/etc. than some of the "loyalists" on the world wide web. Or have I been smoking the bad stuff again? :beruo:

[4WedgeBag]

Ping Eye

Eye 2

Eye 2+

Zing

Zing 2

isi

 

After the isi came the i3, abandoning Karsten's principles by offering O and blade style models. Then in quick succession came several new iron head designs. Karsten's heirs started copying others in the industry, including plastic in the cavity's, blade style irons, no offset, less durable finishes etc... Many of the long time functional aspects of Ping irons were discarded in favor of industry trends, and that is where it stands today.

 

This "Karsten's heirs abandoning his principles" line is getting old.

 

• The bifurcation of the i3 line continues that of the ISI line (where the ISI-K serves as the oversize; possibly to give an aging Karsten a viable choice) and is a trend that every company has embraced. Ping may not have started off with multiple lines of clubs out at one time, but it helps them appeal to more golfers.
  
• The two year product cycle that you continually gripe on is something that apparently started with the Eye 2 V-groove to Eye 2 square groove. Then it started again with the two year cycle from the Eye 2+ to Zing and has pretty much gone like that since (unless you want to count the BeCu heads as a separate release, then it started earlier there aw well). So, the two year life cycle of the clubs is something I'm guessing Mr. Solheim would have approved of.
  
• The "plastic in the cavity's (sic)" was a huge innovative step in golf club manufacturing and is hardly a fad. Tell us all the other companies that had a vibration-reducing, custom weight port before PING started piggy-backing that trend in 1999. Taylormade phoned in an effort a few years later with their 320 and 360 series irons. Callaway used lead tape behind their cavity stickers, but that was primarily to bring target weights within acceptable ranges, and again, that came later (X16?).
  
• The offset argument is one that few people will follow you on. Crazy amounts of offset are no longer a necessity to help the ball get airborn, especially for better players. Manipulation of an iron's COG, shaft technology, ball technology all accomplish this without leaving you with a goosenecked set of irons. I love the ISIs and Eye 2s, but after playing a set of Srixons for the last couple years, it would take some serious time to get used to that much offset again. Even by most people's standard, PING still has too much offset in their clubs.
  
• Durability of the clubs is something you'll be hardpressed to put on the Johns. They still use 17-4 stainless like they did in the old days and do all the stuff in house that they can. And while I'm no metallurgist, I'd bet that industrial regulations are different now than they were 20 years ago. Odds are, they probably can't do things exactly the same way they did them in the 80's, but odds are they pollute less now than they did then too. It's a greener world and whatnot. :pardon:
  

 

Now, maybe I don't have the insider's perspective that you do but from the cheap seats it looks like the Karstens are doing just fine and are probably more loyal to their father/grandfather/etc. than some of the "loyalists" on the world wide web. Or have I been smoking the bad stuff again? :beruo:

 

You're polish and smoking the bad stuff? That is a helluva combination my brother. :lol: I agree with most of your comments here. I believe they have stayed true to the brand. And I don't get the durability argument. I could run over my G5 irons and they would still look better than most - the same as the ISI, Ping I3, and i3+ irons I had before them.

[seena_beena]

:clapping: I agree 100% with beruo has said except one thing..........

 

Crazy amounts of offset are no longer a necessity to help the ball get airborn, especially for better players.

 

The offset is not used to get the ball airborne.....CG does that

 

Offset is there to help square the head at impact.....especially in the long irons

 

Thats why Ping have decreasing offset in their irons....most in long irons.....less in short

 

The G10 & Rapture V2 are both aimed at handicap golfers.....but at two different price points

 

I don't think the S57 has a crazy amount of offset....in fact this has been received very well by Tour players & is now the most played Ping iron on all the Tours.

 

Anyone that thinks the two John's have abandoned Karsten's principles & are copying other companies have never met or spent any time with either of them........they have even left Karsten's office exactly as it was the day he passed, as a memorial to him & they still have his entire collection of vehicles.

 

[daydreamer]

well said beruo...great POV and well thought out.

[frozen_rope]

1) the Eye 2 had a solid 10 plus year dominant run, modified during that time to accommodate players concerned about the pending USGA groove issue.

2) starting with the Zing, and Karsten's heirs calling the shots, Ping struggled to find an iron design which would come close to the Eye 2's popularity. This continues to this day, and is a primary reason why Ping now follows other brands with short product model life cycles.

3)When the i3 was introduced, Ping's Zing's and isi's had been losing market share to Callaway's plastic backed iron designs, so Ping followed Callaway's lead. I realize Ping's marketing claims of a "custom tuning weight port", but Ping continued to weight sort their head inventory and have limitations on head weights/finished club swingweights. I have observed that Ping's capability to achieve varied swingweights at particular finished lengths is the same as it was with the pre-plastic models.

4) offset concept has different effects and benefits for different golf swing shapes. Karsten Solheim realized this fact, and believed in it. Karsten had strong conviction for his design beliefs, so he resisted when encouraged to copy others with non offset blade type irons. His heirs do not share Karsten's design convictions.

5) environmental concerns eliminated BeCu and BeNi, however the change in stainless media finish is a marketing idea.

Karsten appreciated the durability of long lasting straight tumbled finish, and it was a company hallmark. His heirs have favored less durable, more flashy, satin media finishes.

 

Another departure from Karsten's principles is the head weight of the company's putters. Karsten believed 305 gram heads (+/- 5 grams) offered well balanced, playable putters. His heirs have followed other manufacturers by going heavier, raising Ping's putter head weights to 340 grams. This is a major design change which has resulted in Ping putters being less effective than they were during Karsten's era.

 

 

This "Karsten's heirs abandoning his principles" line is getting old.

 

• The bifurcation of the i3 line continues that of the ISI line (where the ISI-K serves as the oversize; possibly to give an aging Karsten a viable choice) and is a trend that every company has embraced. Ping may not have started off with multiple lines of clubs out at one time, but it helps them appeal to more golfers.
  
• The two year product cycle that you continually gripe on is something that apparently started with the Eye 2 V-groove to Eye 2 square groove. Then it started again with the two year cycle from the Eye 2+ to Zing and has pretty much gone like that since (unless you want to count the BeCu heads as a separate release, then it started earlier there aw well). So, the two year life cycle of the clubs is something I'm guessing Mr. Solheim would have approved of.
  
• The "plastic in the cavity's (sic)" was a huge innovative step in golf club manufacturing and is hardly a fad. Tell us all the other companies that had a vibration-reducing, custom weight port before PING started piggy-backing that trend in 1999. Taylormade phoned in an effort a few years later with their 320 and 360 series irons. Callaway used lead tape behind their cavity stickers, but that was primarily to bring target weights within acceptable ranges, and again, that came later (X16?).
  
• The offset argument is one that few people will follow you on. Crazy amounts of offset are no longer a necessity to help the ball get airborn, especially for better players. Manipulation of an iron's COG, shaft technology, ball technology all accomplish this without leaving you with a goosenecked set of irons. I love the ISIs and Eye 2s, but after playing a set of Srixons for the last couple years, it would take some serious time to get used to that much offset again. Even by most people's standard, PING still has too much offset in their clubs.
  
• Durability of the clubs is something you'll be hardpressed to put on the Johns. They still use 17-4 stainless like they did in the old days and do all the stuff in house that they can. And while I'm no metallurgist, I'd bet that industrial regulations are different now than they were 20 years ago. Odds are, they probably can't do things exactly the same way they did them in the 80's, but odds are they pollute less now than they did then too. It's a greener world and whatnot. :pardon:
  

 

Now, maybe I don't have the insider's perspective that you do but from the cheap seats it looks like the Karstens are doing just fine and are probably more loyal to their father/grandfather/etc. than some of the "loyalists" on the world wide web. Or have I been smoking the bad stuff again? :beruo:

[seena_beena]

1) the Eye 2 had a solid 10 plus year dominant run, modified during that time to accommodate players concerned about the pending USGA groove issue.

 

A. this was mainly because there was no competition, now there is.

 

2) starting with the Zing, and Karsten's heirs calling the shots, Ping struggled to find an iron design which would come close to the Eye 2's popularity. This continues to this day, and is a primary reason why Ping now follows other brands with short product model life cycles.

 

A. G10 has been #1 selling iron model in the UK for many months, not sure about US.

 

3)When the i3 was introduced, Ping's Zing's and isi's had been losing market share to Callaway's plastic backed iron designs, so Ping followed Callaway's lead. I realize Ping's marketing claims of a "custom tuning weight port", but Ping continued to weight sort their head inventory and have limitations on head weights/finished club swingweights. I have observed that Ping's capability to achieve varied swingweights at particular finished lengths is the same as it was with the pre-plastic models.

 

A. Ping does not weight-sort any more, why would they when the CTP weights are 5g to 32g?

Swingweight is always limited by length/shaft/grip size, for example +1" is always going to be in

the D3-D7 range.

 

Another departure from Karsten's principles is the head weight of the company's putters. Karsten believed 305 gram heads (+/- 5 grams) offered well balanced, playable putters. His heirs have followed other manufacturers by going heavier, raising Ping's putter head weights to 340 grams. This is a major design change which has resulted in Ping putters being less effective than they were during Karsten's era.

 

A. Ping putters are less effective because they've added 35 grams? All putter manufacturers have

increased head weight over recent years, simply supplying comsumer demand.

 

4

) offset concept has different effects and benefits for different golf swing shapes. Karsten Solheim realized this fact, and believed in it. Karsten had strong conviction for his design beliefs, so he resisted when encouraged to copy others with non offset blade type irons. His heirs do not share Karsten's design convictions.

 

A. The difference is that Karsten only had one model at a time, he used 'average' offset.

The offset is now tailored to the player - S57->i10->G10->Rapture V2

 

[jebb]

Great reply seena.

 

Are you down at Gainsborough? Headed there tomorrow.

[4WedgeBag]

1) the Eye 2 had a solid 10 plus year dominant run, modified during that time to accommodate players concerned about the pending USGA groove issue.

2) starting with the Zing, and Karsten's heirs calling the shots, Ping struggled to find an iron design which would come close to the Eye 2's popularity. This continues to this day, and is a primary reason why Ping now follows other brands with short product model life cycles.

3)When the i3 was introduced, Ping's Zing's and isi's had been losing market share to Callaway's plastic backed iron designs, so Ping followed Callaway's lead. I realize Ping's marketing claims of a "custom tuning weight port", but Ping continued to weight sort their head inventory and have limitations on head weights/finished club swingweights. I have observed that Ping's capability to achieve varied swingweights at particular finished lengths is the same as it was with the pre-plastic models.

4) offset concept has different effects and benefits for different golf swing shapes. Karsten Solheim realized this fact, and believed in it. Karsten had strong conviction for his design beliefs, so he resisted when encouraged to copy others with non offset blade type irons. His heirs do not share Karsten's design convictions.

5) environmental concerns eliminated BeCu and BeNi, however the change in stainless media finish is a marketing idea.

Karsten appreciated the durability of long lasting straight tumbled finish, and it was a company hallmark. His heirs have favored less durable, more flashy, satin media finishes.

 

Another departure from Karsten's principles is the head weight of the company's putters. Karsten believed 305 gram heads (+/- 5 grams) offered well balanced, playable putters. His heirs have followed other manufacturers by going heavier, raising Ping's putter head weights to 340 grams. This is a major design change which has resulted in Ping putters being less effective than they were during Karsten's era.

 

 

This "Karsten's heirs abandoning his principles" line is getting old.

 

• The bifurcation of the i3 line continues that of the ISI line (where the ISI-K serves as the oversize; possibly to give an aging Karsten a viable choice) and is a trend that every company has embraced. Ping may not have started off with multiple lines of clubs out at one time, but it helps them appeal to more golfers.
  
• The two year product cycle that you continually gripe on is something that apparently started with the Eye 2 V-groove to Eye 2 square groove. Then it started again with the two year cycle from the Eye 2+ to Zing and has pretty much gone like that since (unless you want to count the BeCu heads as a separate release, then it started earlier there aw well). So, the two year life cycle of the clubs is something I'm guessing Mr. Solheim would have approved of.
  
• The "plastic in the cavity's (sic)" was a huge innovative step in golf club manufacturing and is hardly a fad. Tell us all the other companies that had a vibration-reducing, custom weight port before PING started piggy-backing that trend in 1999. Taylormade phoned in an effort a few years later with their 320 and 360 series irons. Callaway used lead tape behind their cavity stickers, but that was primarily to bring target weights within acceptable ranges, and again, that came later (X16?).
  
• The offset argument is one that few people will follow you on. Crazy amounts of offset are no longer a necessity to help the ball get airborn, especially for better players. Manipulation of an iron's COG, shaft technology, ball technology all accomplish this without leaving you with a goosenecked set of irons. I love the ISIs and Eye 2s, but after playing a set of Srixons for the last couple years, it would take some serious time to get used to that much offset again. Even by most people's standard, PING still has too much offset in their clubs.
  
• Durability of the clubs is something you'll be hardpressed to put on the Johns. They still use 17-4 stainless like they did in the old days and do all the stuff in house that they can. And while I'm no metallurgist, I'd bet that industrial regulations are different now than they were 20 years ago. Odds are, they probably can't do things exactly the same way they did them in the 80's, but odds are they pollute less now than they did then too. It's a greener world and whatnot. :pardon:
  

 

Now, maybe I don't have the insider's perspective that you do but from the cheap seats it looks like the Karstens are doing just fine and are probably more loyal to their father/grandfather/etc. than some of the "loyalists" on the world wide web. Or have I been smoking the bad stuff again? :beruo:

 

Frozen rope - you obviously have an axe to grind with the current Karsten regime because you're reaching on several of these points. Putter head weight? The reason I switched from a Ping to a Cameron putter is because of the heavier weight. And BTW, so did Tiger.

 

Besides, who knows how Mr. Solheim would had evolved his own designs and overall company direction given advances in computer aided design, materials, manufacturing capabilities, and market demand. That's like a Disney purist claiming that if Walt were alive then Disney wouldn't be the global media monstrosity it is today.

[mat562]

The reason I switched from a Ping to a Cameron putter is because of the heavier weight. And BTW, so did Tiger.

 

Not a dig, and apologies for wandering off topic, but where did you hear/read that?

[frozen_rope]

Regarding putters, the heavier head weights came about once driver length shafted putters emerged. The super long putter shaft requires a heavy head. The manufacturing molds became available and it turned on a green light at the putter companies that selling traditional length putters with the heavy heads might be a new angle to sell putters. Heavy heads take away a players sense of touch. , but since it's something new it gives putter companies a story to sell. Regarding Tiger, he played all his junior and amateur golf with a stock Ping 305 gram head putter. I am certain that when he took money from Titleist he insisted they make him a putter as closes as possible to the Ping he liked playing. I promise you he is not using a sledgehammer weight (330 to 340 gram) putter like those found in golf shops today. Watson won his majors with a 305 gram Ping Pal, Strange won his back to back US Opens with a stock Ping 305 gram head Ping Zing. Ping's gold putter vault is filled with hundreds of 305 gram head putter designs.

Karsten Solheim's heirs are living off Karsten's designs, and that's fine, it's their birthright. But throwing away his philosophy is wrong. He knew what weight and balance made playable clubs. He was the smart engineer who also knew golf.His heirs should remember that and embrace it.

 

 

 

Frozen rope - you obviously have an axe to grind with the current Karsten regime because you're reaching on several of these points. Putter head weight? The reason I switched from a Ping to a Cameron putter is because of the heavier weight. And BTW, so did Tiger.

 

Besides, who knows how Mr. Solheim would had evolved his own designs and overall company direction given advances in computer aided design, materials, manufacturing capabilities, and market demand. That's like a Disney purist claiming that if Walt were alive then Disney wouldn't be the global media monstrosity it is today.

[frozen_rope]

A. this was mainly because there was no competition, now there is.

 

No competition ? Through the 70's, 80's, 90's, there were plenty of competing golf equipment brands.

 

A. G10 has been #1 selling iron model in the UK for many months, not sure about US.

 

I imagine Callaway , Ping, Taylor Made, Cobra, and Adams all shares the iron market, which is declining due to hybrid sales.

 

A. Ping does not weight-sort any more, why would they when the CTP weights are 5g to 32g?

Swingweight is always limited by length/shaft/grip size, for example +1" is always going to be in

the D3-D7 range.

 

Ping weight sorts every production run of irons heads they manufacture.

 

A. Ping putters are less effective because they've added 35 grams? All putter manufacturers have

increased head weight over recent years, simply supplying comsumer demand.

 

Changing putter head weights from 305 grams to 340 was a move from very playable to using a sledgehammer. Karsten Solheim never "supplied customer demand". Why would a company make clubs based on feedback from a bunch guys who shoot bogey golf or worse ? Nobody asked or demanded Karsten Solheim start making funny looking putters and irons. he did it because he was an engineer who knew how to make a better product. And he knew that if he made better clubs then players would enjoy playing them

 

A. The difference is that Karsten only had one model at a time, he used 'average' offset.

The offset is now tailored to the player - S57->i10->G10->Rapture V2

 

Nonsense thought up by somebody in a marketing department.

Karsten knew the functional benefits of offset in his designs and he was consistent in his iron product introductions.

 

[seena_beena]

Regarding putters, the heavier head weights came about once driver length shafted putters emerged. The super long putter shaft requires a heavy head. The manufacturing molds became available and it turned on a green light at the putter companies that selling traditional length putters with the heavy heads might be a new angle to sell putters. Heavy heads take away a players sense of touch.

 

Ping have been making belly & long-handled putters for many years.....the reason they've gone heavier is that is what consumers are demanding......oh & by the way you can still order a 305 gram Manganese Bronze or Stainless Steel Anser or Zing if you really want.

 

Regarding Tiger, he played all his junior and amateur golf with a stock Ping 305 gram head putter.

 

I played all my junior & amateur golf with a 160cc persimmon driver back in the 1980's, but I now find a 460cc Titanium/Tungsten RaptureV2 slightly longer & more forgiving than an offcut of wood on the end of a piece of steel.

 

Karsten was indeed a smart engineer & his heirs are still following most of his ideas, but the company had it's worst years in the mid 90's when Karsten was still calling the shots.

 

The G2, G5 & now G10 woods have been so successful because of Karsten's heirs.

 

[seena_beena]

A. The difference is that Karsten only had one model at a time, he used 'average' offset.

The offset is now tailored to the player - S57->i10->G10->Rapture V2

 

Nonsense thought up by somebody in a marketing department.

Karsten knew the functional benefits of offset in his designs and he was consistent in his iron product introductions.

 

Yeah I think you're right on this one........from Tour player to club pro' to weekend golfer to absolute beginner........we should all use the same offset........second thoughts............maybe not.

 

 

[4WedgeBag]

Heavy heads take away a players sense of touch. , but since it's something new it gives putter companies a story to sell. Regarding Tiger, he played all his junior and amateur golf with a stock Ping 305 gram head putter. I am certain that when he took money from Titleist he insisted they make him a putter as closes as possible to the Ping he liked playing. I promise you he is not using a sledgehammer weight (330 to 340 gram) putter like those found in golf shops today.

 

 

 

Frozen rope - you obviously have an axe to grind with the current Karsten regime because you're reaching on several of these points. Putter head weight? The reason I switched from a Ping to a Cameron putter is because of the heavier weight. And BTW, so did Tiger.

 

Besides, who knows how Mr. Solheim would had evolved his own designs and overall company direction given advances in computer aided design, materials, manufacturing capabilities, and market demand. That's like a Disney purist claiming that if Walt were alive then Disney wouldn't be the global media monstrosity it is today.

 

Do your homework Frozen Rope. It is common knowledge and freely available via Google that Tiger games a 35.25" Newport 2 GSS with a swingweight of D7, which is approximately 326 grams. He has used the same putter since 2000. And I think the man knows something about feel when it comes to putters.

[7464]

[size="3"]I see from some of the post made that the "S" series time line is as follows but can someone fill in the rest of the ???? for me...thanks:

S59 (no ferule)= 2002-2003
S59 (with ferrule) = 2003 - ????
S58 = ???? - ????
S57 = ???? - 2010
S56 = 2010 - 2012

[/size]

[PutterHo]

Message eerogolf ... he's a huge ping guy. http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/161736-ping-irons/page__p__1050272__hl__eerogolf+ping__fromsearch__1#entry1050272
[quote name='i_series' timestamp='1323260740' post='3904153']
[size="3"]I see from some of the post made that the "S" series time line is as follows but can someone fill in the rest of the ???? for me...thanks:

S59 (no ferule)= 2002-2003
S59 (with ferrule) = 2003 - ????
S58 = ???? - ????
S57 = ???? - 2010
S56 = 2010 - 2012

[/size]
[/quote]

[wazzas]

I know this thread is pretty old, but I'm chasing specs on a G20 4 wood... and i20 hybrids.

I know on the Ping website they had an old clubs archive section, but I can't find it anymore?

Can anyone help or point me in the right direction!

[Milfordlefty]

http://www.ping.com/clubs/classics/fairwaysdetail.aspx?id=9968

 

Here is a link to the 4 wood. On the right side is a box which will have links to classic drivers, hybrids, irons, etc, but only going back to G2

[wazzas]

i5 2007

G5 2006-07

G2 2003-06

G2 HL 2003-06

S59 Tour (w/ferrule) 2003

i3+ 2002-03

I3+ BLADE 2002-03

S59 (no ferrule) 2002

i3 Blade 1999-01

i3 O-Size 1999-01

ISI 1996-99

ISI BeCu 1996-99

ISI Nickel 1996-99

ISI-K 1996-99

Zing 2 1994-96

Zing 2 BeCu 1994-96

Zing 1992-94

Zing BeCu 1992-94

Eye2+ 1990-98

Eye2+ BeCu 1990-98

Eye (Patented) 1985-89

Eye2 (Pat. No.) 1984-90

Eye2 BeCu 1983-90

Eye2 (Pat. Pending) 1982-84

Eye (Pat. No.) 1980-85

Karsten I (Made in USA & nbr on sole) 1977-84

Karsten II 1977-84

Karsten III 1977-84

Karsten IV 1977-80

Karsten I (US.Pat. & iron nbr on sole) 1977

Karsten I (Patent No. with dot) 1974-77

Karsten I (Patent pending with dot) 1972-74

Karsten I (Patent pending/no dot) 1968-71

 

Pretty detailed right there@! ;)

 

http://www.ping.com/...il.aspx?id=9968

 

Here is a link to the 4 wood. On the right side is a box which will have links to classic drivers, hybrids, irons, etc, but only going back to G2

 

Cheers, thats great.

[JR Former Golfer]

Hello I’m trying to figure something out , This is gonna sound like I don’t know what I’m taking about which is kinda true, I used to gold 18 years ago.Recently my stepfather passed and always had the best of the best, tommorow I’ll figure out exact clubs, all I know is the PINGS came in a all white leather bag kept very wellwith. White leather top cover, clubs would be from the late 80s mid 90s, then he switched to callaways with graphite shaft, and then top of line cobras in 2001-2007 ish. All the clubs and bags are almost mint , I’d say good condition to be fair I’m trying to figure what types these could be , cause I’m going to get rid of them, also he hasent golfed in 11 years so they have been well maintained, I know this is like a jeopardy question but if any ideas of the club type and if there worth selling, would be greatly appreciated, if  there a few hundred I’ll hold em, but if it’s going to help me with bills that’s a diff story, I remember the cobras were like the first to come out out with graphite handle or could be callaways , also brand new carts (wheels), if any info or intrest lmk tommorow when I go to clean house out I’ll have perfect images