Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 848 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

About to pickup a new set of Ping i525 irons. Recently had a few shoulder surgeries and finally back able to play so seems like the obvious decision. I use a monitor weekly so know some stats but my swing is way to inconsistent to get a true fitting and make it count. Just want a good set I can grow into once im back to closer to my old form. So very generic #s my swing Speed on my 7 iron averages about 85 mph, a few times I’ve gotten ball speed up to 123 mph but hoovers way closer to 110/115. I want to make it as easy on myself as possible now, but want a shaft that can handle 89-90 mph swing speed. I am leaning towards the IO 6.0 as it’s stiff and at 110g it’s not light, but not heavy. The LZ is 120g and feels slightly stiffer. What’s everyone’s opinion ? Would it really matter to someone who’s very inconsistent and can’t go wrong with either ? The io is no up charge, the LZ is $22 per club 


Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Machmood said:

About to pickup a new set of Ping i525 irons. Recently had a few shoulder surgeries and finally back able to play so seems like the obvious decision. I use a monitor weekly so know some stats but my swing is way to inconsistent to get a true fitting and make it count. Just want a good set I can grow into once im back to closer to my old form. So very generic #s my swing Speed on my 7 iron averages about 85 mph, a few times I’ve gotten ball speed up to 123 mph but hoovers way closer to 110/115. I want to make it as easy on myself as possible now, but want a shaft that can handle 89-90 mph swing speed. I am leaning towards the IO 6.0 as it’s stiff and at 110g it’s not light, but not heavy. The LZ is 120g and feels slightly stiffer. What’s everyone’s opinion ? Would it really matter to someone who’s very inconsistent and can’t go wrong with either ? The io is no up charge, the LZ is $22 per club 

If you are way too inconsistent to get a fitting then stick with the stock shaft. Save the money form grange LX’s and get some lessons with it

Edited by Beastie

Stevie T

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted (edited)

Ya that’s my thoughts. Currently getting weekly lessons at Golftec. Excited about the new sticks. 6.0 110g seems like a perfect weight for me 

Edited by Machmood

  • Moderator
Posted

I play the LZ 5.5 and have played the 6.0. They both feel very similar. I tested side by side with matching heads. I have not tried the IO but they are scaled very similar in that flex from 5.5 to 6.5 adds weight and lowers launch.

For the LZ, the slightly lighter weight of 5.5 vs 6.0 just seemed to launch a bit higher but not much. My 7 iron SS is 80-85. If you go with the IO, I think it may launch higher than the LZ for the same Flex # because it’s lighter and is designed to launch a bit higher. 

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Also I just found out you’re really not supposed to bend ping clubs. Does it sound dumb to get U,PW,9 in blue dot 1 degree up and the rest standard? I’m 6’0 with a slightly below 35.5 WTF, longer clubs feel fine but those shorter ones  I like they could be a tad more upright 


  • Administrator
Posted

You can bend PINGs.

The notch even helps with that.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

That’s what I thought but someone said they bend back?? Idk I thought that’s what the notch was for also . Looking forward to the i525’s . I started off thinking I would go for the g430 but after hitting both I just love the look and feel of the i525. Hopefully as I improve they will feel even smother 


Note: This thread is 848 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
    • Wordle 1,668 2/6* 🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.