Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 5925 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
Hey guys I'm in the market for a PING 1-A putter. I have heard SOOO MANY good things about them and I just love the classic look (Not that big into the space ship looking putters these days).

My question is this:

I can buy a BRAND NEW one (Ping still makes them) for $100 bucks. Or I can search for a OLD used one for probably a little more money.

Are teh old ones better? Better feel? Better "PING" sound? Does the age of teh older ones make them a all around better putter (Kinda like how a guitar starts to sound better with age).

OR is it just the because they are OLD and people like older things haha?

Just trying to figure out if the performance/feel/sound will be worth waiting and searching for a OLDER 1-A putter OR will I get the same performance?

Posted
Somewhat relevant to the topic:

My putter is an old Anser. My grandfather bought it new back in '69 and gave it to me in '85. I've gamed it ever since. After getting back into the game seriously last year I checked out my putter on line and figured out that it was pretty old so I bought a new/used Karsten series Anser to game and retired the old putter. While the current Karsten series Anser is a great putter I found myself preferring my old one. Eventually I traded the Karsten in and put my old anser back in the bag. The decision was based more on feel, look, and sound rather than performance. I putted just as well with the new anser but I'm just used to the old one. The old putter feels slightly softer (it's some brass alloy), and the sound it makes when you hit the sweet spot is very distinctive The new putter felt fine, but it lacked that sound, and I'm just used to getting that particular form of feedback from the putter.

Nike Vapor Speed driver 12* stock regular shaft
Nike Machspeed 4W 17*, 7W 21* stock stiff shafts
Ping i10 irons 4-9, PW, UW, SW, LW AWT stiff flex
Titleist SC Kombi 35"; Srixon Z Star XV tour yellow

Clicgear 3.0; Sun Mountain Four 5


Posted
I've got a Ping 1-A from the early 80s as well as an Anser from the mid 70s and some other older Pings. I love them all and I played the 1-A and Anser when I was on varsity in high school. Not sure about the newer reincarnations of the Ping classic models. You should be able to get a 1-A from at least the 80s or 70s in the $100 range or less on e-bay.

In a staff blue  Aerolite III

Razr Hawk 10.5* (BB 63 S)
Orig Steelhead 4W 16.8* (F)
Orig Steelhead 7W 20* (M-10)

 JPX-800 Pro 4-pw (XP S300)

 MP-T Blk Ni 51.06, MP-T Blk Ni 56.14, MP-T Blk Ni 58.10

  Bettinardi BC-1 (34")

TM TP Black


Note: This thread is 5925 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.