Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 5600 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
When i bought my clubs last year towards the end of the season I basically took my time and hit every club before settling on the Clevelands. It was close between them and the Mizuno's, both felt good, if anything Clevelands had a tad more distance, nothing really noticeable, but it was the promotions Cleveland had going and the deal the store gave me that had me settle on the Clevelands. Shortly after that I hit the Ping G10 Hybrids and loved them...driver hit very sweet as well. The pings were one club I did not try and I started regretting not hitting them after hitting the hybrids and driver...could not find anything but old beatup G10 hybrids or I would have owned them. Yesterday was at a golf course getting ready to hit a bucket of balls checking out a set of Ping G15s when the club manager asked me if i wanted to hit them. I said sure and off i went with my bucket of balls and the G15 ping irons.

They are nice hitting clubs with decent feel and good distance. I hit them as far as the Clevelands; however, what surprised me was that the Clevelands, to me, had a far better feel to them. When i make good contact on the Clevelands it just felt so buttery smooth and did not get quite the same feel from the Pings. I remember getting something similar to the Clevelands from the Mizuno 200. I do not know if now I am just used to the feel of the Clevelands and therefore more comfortable, or if my expections of the Pings were just to high, but I actually like how the Clevelands hit more so than the Pings. I cant wait now to see the next set of clubs from Cleveland as those will probably be the ones I get my free trade in for. You have to have loved that promotion from Cleveland.

Posted

The promotion was you buy a set of Cleveland golf clubs during a set period last year...believe it was Oct-Dec (cant actually remember the dates)... and you can trade them in for a new set of the latest Clevelands clubs within the next two years...this includes there latest models. I thought this was a pretty sweet deal. No, I am not thinking about getting a different set other than my Clevelands; however, you like putting certain speculations to rest. For instance in this case, did i sell myself short by not trying the Pings like I had the TM, Calloways, Mizunos, Cobras, etc.. The hitting of the Ping hybrids and driver really brought this to question for me as those clubs, I thought, really hit well. Then again, if I had preferred the Pings, who is to say I would have used the promotion, turned in my Clevelands for the new set, then sell them and buy the Pings. This is mute now as mentioned in my first post, as i actually like the feel of the Clevelands better. I was just surprised by my findings yesterday and wanted to share the experience. Guess it comes down to individual preference and the fact most sets are actually pretty good and you getting used to a particular club likely has a lot to do with which club you view as the better. Both clubs did hit pretty darn good though...then again my swing has seen some significant improvement and right now I just love hitting the golf ball


Posted
Ah, that sounds like a really good deal. But hopefully, you will continue to like your current set and will keep them. I'm not a great fan of constantly changing clubs just because something new comes out. I feel it could lead to a potential loss of confidence in existing equipment.

Guess I'm not the guy that the major manufacturers are targeting. My driver is two generations old now - Titleist 905. Still hits just fine, no reason to change to the latest and greatest, IMO.

Posted
I was looking to replace some 25 year old no-name clubs and tried the G15's. I didn't like the feel, either - instead of a crisp "Whack" on a pure shot, everything felt like a "Bonk" off some wierd part of the face. It was odd to feel a bad shot but see a good one. I ended up with a used set of I5's which have, in my opinion, a much better feel to them. Glad you're liking the Cleveland's, though. I've never hit them . .will have to try them out one day.

Note: This thread is 5600 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).
  • 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.