Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Ping Eye2 standard shaft length help

2 posts in this topic

I am getting around to cleaning/refurbishing my inherited Eye2's and need some help.  I know at some point in time they have been cut on.  According to Ping, the set was a +1/4" but I don't think that is true anymore.  I have removed some of the grips and found the end of the shafts are no where near cut square.  I compared them to another family member's standard black dot and they seem to be almost identical in length.  I think someone cut off the extra 1/4" on all the clubs but the 7 iron.  It is definitely longer than the other black dot 7 iron.

Here is my question.  I found the original black dot lengths for all irons and want to check/cut mine back to those specs (or at least get a square cut end).  The 7 iron is listed as 36.75" but I don't know exactly what length that is.  Trying to measure to the "sole" seems a little difficult without a device of some sort.  Does anyone know what the correct length would be from the end of the shaft to the point where it is inserted into the club head?  Seems that would be the easiest but not sure that is possible due to different lies.  Can anyone help?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Here's how I think PING does it


There are two plates on top of the cutting table that are capable of sliding.  Each plates have variety of holes and a movable peg that lets you adjust to different settings.  On the top plate there's an immovable peg that you rest the club head against  to cut the shaft.

The top plate adjust different clubs from 2 iron to lob wedge.

The bottom plate lets you adjust for overall +/- length with respect to standard.

This cutting method was designed by Karsten Solheim himself.

This link may be more helpful


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • In the world of putting if it works I would just carry on  I don't think I can "nose " putt like that  I do something similar.  I trace the line with my eyes and set my set along the target line. My rear eye is dominant and as my eyes are tracing the line from my AP to the ball I like to keep my eyes behind and beneath the ball  Then once me eyes trace back to a the line behind the ball then I automatically start my backstroke.  This seems to work well with my odessay #9 putter or when belly wedge .  
    • All your comments are valid, but I should point out that all the tips I have been given have come via very good golfers. I am also a great believer that the best instruction doesn't have to come from the best golfers, much like any sport, and to some degree life in general. There are great school teachers who don't have children, if you get my point. The best golf tip I have ever received,and it knocked two shots off of my handicap over night, came from a 9 handicapper, not a pro. We sometimes fall into the trap of thinking a pro is a messiah, and somebody with less personal ability  doesn't have the knowledge to give instruction. I play against some very inexperienced golfers who would benefit from my tips, but I don't give them the help they need, because of the aforementioned concept. 
    • Got the new wedges yesterday and here are my initial thoughts.  1 - finish is much softer, more like a satin finish and not nearly as bright as the images on Rock Bottom's website. I consider it a plus.  2 - did a little chipping with them and some full swings using foam balls and they seem very well balanced and I swing them well as others I have tried that cost more. 3 - the components seem well made, the grips are a little disappointing (thin feeling) but they aren't unusable. I've been planning to get new grips for my driver and fairway woods anyhow so I need to do 5 instead of 3 now, no biggie. Hoping to get 9-holes in at the Par 3 course tomorrow evening and see how they perform there and how the finish holds up.
    • No state uses a proportional system. An analysis of the whole number proportional plan and congressional district systems of awarding electoral votes, evaluated the systems "on the basis of whether they promote majority rule, make elections more nationally competitive, reduce incentives for partisan machinations, and make all votes count equally.  . . .   Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, a congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.   For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ."     The National Popular Vote bill retains the Electoral College and state control of elections.  It again changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.  Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter  in the state counts and national count. The bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.   States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.          Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."   The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive.                                                                                                                                                                         Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government.  The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government.  The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
    • The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

  • Blog Entries