Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't understand PING's color code system (note: as of July 10, they reverted back to an older style, eliminating some colors like "purple" and going from 3/4° adjustments back to full-° adjustments).

For example, my daughter @NatalieB was fit for -1" and purple (1.5° flat) color code in her irons. This tells you what you need to know: length and lie.

But then PING wrote to say that my fitter was using the old codes, and that purple was no more, and she would fit into black. They included these two images (bottom of post).

Now, someone tell me what I don't understand: black just says standard lie angle, but if irons are ordered 1" short, is the lie angle standard, 1° flat, 2° flat… or what? Isn't the color code just a stand-in for the lie angle?

It seems to me two pieces of information are needed: lie angle and length. Yes, they often or usually go together - 1" long and 2° upright, or 1/2" short and 1° flat or whatever - but they don't have to. You could like an upright, shorter club…

So how does a color code solve anything when you still need to know two things: length and lie? Is the color-code just a stand-in for the lie angle? If so, shouldn't purple (-1.5°) be red or orange now, with the -1" adjustment?

New_PING_ColorCodeChart_17x22.jpg

PING_ColorCode Conversion Chart_2017.jpg

How did she go from -1" and 1.5° flat to -1" and standard lie angle?

Share this post


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

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Perhaps the rep that told you black dot is just looking at stock measurements ( like diagram 1). I always gamed ping irons and thought the dot is only lie angle.

Not sure if that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, upndown21 said:

Perhaps the rep that told you black dot is just looking at stock measurements ( like diagram 1). I always gamed ping irons and thought the dot is only lie angle.

Not sure if that helps.

The rep didn't tell me "black dot." The factory did when I tried to order "-1 inch" and "purple." They said "using the new conversion chart she's black dot now."

But if black is just lie angle, why is she -1"/black and not -1"/red or -1"/orange? Why did -1"/purple (-1.5°) become -1"/black (0°??)?

Share this post


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

I'd just ignore the conversion chart and stick to the normal fitting process with the first chart. Like you said, stick to the numbers, not what the color label is. 

That conversion chart almost seems backwards. Its weird. 

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

But if black is just lie angle, why is she -1"/black and not -1"/red or -1"/orange? Why did -1"/purple (-1.5°) become -1"/black (0°??)?

Maybe the new std black dot is a different lie angle from before?

Share this post


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

@iacas This doesn’t make sense to me either (unless they have changed what the dots represent without providing it), but it does look like they are trying to match people based on static measurements (which might be fine for the majority of people).  You could always take your daughter back to the fitter, with the new irons, to make sure if any further lie tweaks need to be made based on a dynamic fitting.

Share this post


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

11 hours ago, iacas said:

Is the color-code just a stand-in for the lie angle?

I think it does.

11 hours ago, iacas said:

If so, shouldn't purple (-1.5°) be red or orange now, with the -1" adjustment?

Under the new chart, I would say it put her in the orange band, maybe the black band if the wrist to floor measurement is on the high side.

I think the conversion is a bit confusing. I wonder if they are comparing the charts with regard to the measurements and how they changed. A -1 club length change use to be for a 4'10 to 5'0" player. Now its for a 5'2" to a 5'3" player.

What makes it more confusing is that specifications on the website are not consistent with regards to the ladies irons. For the G Le Clubs, they are based on the red dot and standard ladies length. The G Irons are based on the black dot with standard length clubs. Is there a ladies color chart? What is standard ladies length?

Share this post


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

My understanding is that the dot refers only to the head in relation to the factory standard lie angle which is black. For example, a green dot would be the head bent to be 2 degrees upright. However, if the club is longer or shorter than standard length it is up to you and your fitter to decide which color code you need now to attain the effective lie angle that you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That new chart is wacked.  I have the original on my PC at home.

Arturo has it the way I understood it... " the dot refers only to the head in relation to the factory standard lie angle which is black"

I was measured on my wrist to floor and that gave them the starting point of Black +1".

I then hit some balls off the lie board with tape and that showed I needed to be a lil upright so they gave me Blue dot, standard length shafts but it still off a bit.  Grabbed Blue dot, +1" and I was hitting the ball and board good so that was what I went with.  Any of my other clubs I have gone with 1* upright and +1" on shaft length.

 

***** Just found this so I thought I would add it to the post *****

" a well-known standard in golf is that each 1/2" added to the shaft length = a 1* more UPRIGHT lie angle"

Don't know if it is 100% but wanted to share as it might help OP with his dilemma.

Edited by Vinny Cap

Share this post


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

6 minutes ago, Vinny Cap said:

***** Just found this so I thought I would add it to the post *****

" a well-known standard in golf is that each 1/2" added to the shaft length = a 1* more UPRIGHT lie angle"

Don't know if it is 100% but wanted to share as it might help OP with his dilemma.

A half inch is a half degree. But that still doesn't make this chart make sense. 

Share this post


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

8 minutes ago, phillyk said:

A half inch is a half degree. But that still doesn't make this chart make sense. 

As I look around more, I am seeing a lot of different info... not sure what is gospel but I shared what I found... it might be more relevant to the old chart and my Eye2's.

Share this post


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

@iacas,

I'm not sure of PING's "standard" specs. But it also looks like they've eliminated yellow dot as well. 

Maybe it's because she's playing a shorter shaft, so the irons will play as if they had a flatter lie?

If I personally played PING irons, Under the old system, I was +3/4", white dot...  Now it looks like I'm +3/4", green dot. Which is a full ° flatter with static lie angle. 

Maybe they are taking what I'll call "dynamic lie" into account or "plays like lie"... This one puzzles me as well.

Share this post


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

  • What has changed?
    • The length-lie dependency has been removed by changing color code bands to an “S-shape”.
    • Each color code has a fixed lie angle irrespective of club length. This removes the need for converting color codes when using non-standard-length clubs with the AFS system.
    • Color codes have moved to 1° increments to simplify lie-angle offerings.
    • Yellow and Purple color codes have been removed.
    • Updated length recommendations better align static recommendations with dynamic fitting results. Height columns are now scaled for easier use and overlaps are removed.
  • How is it more precise?
    • By analyzing over 20,000 fittings from our nFlight database, combined with years of research, we have made data-driven changes to better align static and dynamic fittings, particularly with respect to players’ length recommendations.
    • 75% of players will fit to a dynamic color code within one of the new static recommendation compared to 70% previously, while 95% will fit within two color codes compared to 90% on the previous color code system.
  • How is it simpler?
    • Removing the length-lie dependency eliminates the need to convert color codes when building AFS heads at over/under standard length.
    • It also removes the need to convert back when ordering clubs at over/under standard length after a fitting using our AFS system.
    • Removing height overlaps and scaling eliminates ambiguity.
    • Plotting height and wrist-to-floor measurements for a static recommendation is more intuitive.

Does this help @iacas ?

Edited by Vinsk

Share this post


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

24 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Does this help @iacas ?

Not really. I’m not sure why 1” short and 1.5 flat became 1” short and standard lie.

Share this post


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

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

Not really. I’m not sure why 1” short and 1.5 flat became 1” short and standard lie.

Well the article mentioned that after extensive research they have found that the 'norm' for most golfers is actually more upright (blue) rather than what they used to consider as standard "black". So basically it appears that they consider 1* upright as their new black and are making adjustments accordingly?

http://www.golfhq.com/blog/

Edited by Vinsk

Share this post


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

So we requested her wedges (and irons) be purple color code and -1". That's 1.5° flat.

I just stuck her 54° Glide wedge in the loft/lie machine in the "SW" hole. The SW spot is 56° and 65° lie angle.

The club properly shows a bit strong - very nearly 2°. So that's fine. But unfortunately it also shows 65° lie angle.

The specs for the 54/SS say (https://www.ping.com/clubs/wedgesdetail.aspx?id=22493): 64.4° lie angle.

It's even more upright (by about half a degree) than it's supposed to be. I bent it down to 64°. Similarly, her 58° was a bit too upright also, and I bent it down a little as well.

I hope to have caught this in time to help fix the irons.

@mvmac got a response from one of the engineers he may share, and after reading it, I'm still convinced that their system is just screwy: just stick with loft and lie. Remembering a color code doesn't help anything if the color code is a confusing stand-in for the lie.


Update: I bent the wedges to 63°, so they're okay now.

Share this post


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

24 minutes ago, iacas said:

@mvmac got a response from one of the engineers he may share,

Thanks for the reminder. Here is the response from the head of fitting science.

Quote

Hi Michael/Erik,

Hopefully I can help clear this up for you!

You are correct we have moved to 10 color codes and 1° increments however the system works in a different way to previously. In essence a couple of the points you make are what we have tried to improve in order to simplify with the new system.

The previous system took in to account the length-lie dependency where the “playable” lie angle of the club would change if the length of shaft changed, even if the physical lie angle of the head remained the same (i.e. a longer shaft would make the club play more upright and a shorter shaft would make the club play more flat). This used to mean that the lie angle of a color code would be different depending on the length of the club as we would account for it when building at PING.

Using your daughters example of purple color code at -1”, the physical lie angle her 7 iron would have been 61.88°, however at standard length the lie angle of a purple color code would actually be 60.38°, or at +1” it would be 63.38°. Since our AFS fitting heads are fixed lie angles, when your daughter was fit it would have been with a black AFS head which is fixed at 61.88° and a 1” short shaft which would effectively play as purple color code as the shorter shaft length meant the playable lie angle was about 1.5° flatter. Since PING would take in to account the length-lie dependency in the past the purple color code ordered at -1” would have a lie angle of 61.88° the same lie angle as the black head used in the fitting. This used to be confusing for a lot of our accounts in terms of using the correct AFS head in fittings as the fitter has to convert color codes when the player is not standard length, for example a player who used to plot as -1/2” purple color code on the old chart would have needed to sue the slightly more upright red color code with the -1/2” short shaft to make it have a “playable” lie angle of purple which would then need to be ordered. This confusion with length-lie dependency all stemmed from the days of fixed demo clubs before the ability to interchange heads and shafts in fitting systems.  

On the new system the lie angle of a color code is FIXED, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LENGTH of the club used. So a for example a BLACK  7 iron head will be 61.88° whether it is at standard length, 1” short or 1” long. As such the color code chart was adjusted to take this in to account so the fitter would not have to make any conversions when building AFS fitting clubs or ordering when the player is not standard length.

Since the lie angle of a color code is now fixed, players who were not standard length will have a new color code on the new system to ensure that the physical lie angle of their clubs remains the same. So in your daughters example her purple 7 iron at -1” short actually had a lie angle of 61.88° which on the new system is the same lie angle of the BLACK color code. So even though your daughters color code has changed the physical lie angle of her clubs is still the same and as such they will play the same. Essentially as you described in your e-mail the New Color Code System now tells you exactly what the lie angle is which it did not previously.           

I hope I managed to explain the confusion of the old system to you, it is definitely complicated and the major reason we have moved to the new system which is similar to what you described and also much more intuitive and logical.

If you still have any questions I’d be more than happy to try and answer those for you either via e-mail or phone call.

Many Thanks

Share this post


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

1 hour ago, mvmac said:

On the new system the lie angle of a color code is FIXED, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LENGTH of the club used. So a for example a BLACK  7 iron head will be 61.88° whether it is at standard length, 1” short or 1” long. As such the color code chart was adjusted to take this in to account so the fitter would not have to make any conversions when building AFS fitting clubs or ordering when the player is not standard length.

Since the lie angle of a color code is now fixed, players who were not standard length will have a new color code on the new system to ensure that the physical lie angle of their clubs remains the same. So in your daughters example her purple 7 iron at -1” short actually had a lie angle of 61.88° which on the new system is the same lie angle of the BLACK color code.

Right, so I want it to be 60.38°.

I've sent an email off to PING, and hopefully they can get this right. That'll be some upside to the backorder.

(The PING site for the G400 irons says 62.0°, so in the email I sent I just wrote 60.5°.)

https://www.ping.com/clubs/ironsdetail.aspx?id=23278


And, from reading that, the color codes are now fixed, which means Black always = 61.88 (or 62.0°).

Which again begs the question: why even have color codes? Why not just call them lie angles, and let people say "1° flat" or whatever?

Share this post


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

6 hours ago, iacas said:

Which again begs the question: why even have color codes?

I think by now it's just part of their brand and what fitters are accustomed to.

6 hours ago, iacas said:

Why not just call them lie angles, and let people say "1° flat" or whatever?

I guess if you get fit or stick with PING irons it's easier to remember a color code than a number, most people have no idea what their 6-iron lie angle is. And obviously you have to be careful with just saying 1° flat because that means something different for each OEM. Heck even then length can be a little different depending on OEM because not everyone measures length the same.

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




  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2017 TST Partners

    Talamore Golf Resort
    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Mission Belt
    Snell Golf
    Frogger Golf
    PitchFix USA
  • Posts

    • That's dumb. If you are "developing your swing" it's made better by the right amount of feedback. And > 1/2 of the time, the "feedback" doesn't even really include what the ball does. The ball flight takes care of itself. It is. Significantly so. From 140 yards, the gap in fairway vs. rough is a fifth of a shot. From 160, a quarter of a shot. There you go again putting words in my mouth, or (willfully?) mis-remembering stuff. I've pointed out the opposite many times: that the advances in equipment have narrowed the gap between players like Tiger and his peers. You couldn't mis-hit a muscleback 2-iron. You can mis-hit a 3-hybrid a little and still do okay. The gap in skill has been artificially reduced. Jack says it. Tiger says it. I've said it. Of course the modern ball is the "best" BALL "ever." But I've never said it's the best thing for the game, or makes the game most interesting, or whatever you're actually trying to say. 0 for 2 there @Jack Watson. Sorry. Yet… you were wrong. They didn't. They hit down. They launched the ball too low, and with too much spin.
    • The bottom line is very simple.  If you are developing your swing or a students is it made better by more or less feedback?  I recommend anyone developing to use the highest spin balls they can find because it gives more feedback. Higher spinning ball is more feedback.  Tour players today would hit straighter with a ball just like a Pinnacle.  Rocks were available back in the day.  No spin isn't what pros want in a ball.  They don't choose no spin because of many reasons. Often players now aim at rough because it's often not what anyone would call rough.  I think it's obvious that I was not making a statistical argument there just pointing out a tendency in the modern game that shows how course setup is weak/favors bomb and gouge brainless golf.  Rough is supposed to be harder to hit from than fairway.  That's also lost on modern gamers for the most part. Joro will agree,  he was there.  A higher spin ball helps separate wheat from chaff.  So many pros agree on these points...You seem to be somewhat alone in your contention that modern golf is the best thing ever... Anyways I have to go so no more time now for this...  I used caps because it's insulting to people to tell them they didn't know what they were doing. Again Best wishes to all for a safe holiday!
    • You can't go back to that, because pros could simply play a 1997 Pinnacle and hit it long and straight. The only thing about the new ball is that they made the 1997 Pinnacle spin more with shorter clubs. So wrap a 1997 Pinnacle in some softer outer layers, and bam, you've accomplished nothing. Balls are better now. So are clubs. So is the understanding that pros have to how important power is in the game. No, it's correct. When players first got launch monitors, the vast majority were hitting down too much, generating too much spin, and effectively hitting ballooning, rising shots. The Frank Nobilo piece, for example, says: So no, it's not arrogant or incorrect. It's perfectly valid. Nobody said anything about gear effect. Yell about it then. Sorry, no. You're simply and provably wrong here. Where do you come up with this bullshit? The rest I've left alone as it's your opinion and that's fine, but don't just spout out shit like it's fact when it's not, please.
    • I know  for myself as a golf fan I want to be able to watch golf and have it entertain me.  There's really only three tournaments anymore I pay attention to Masters British and US Open.  The last couple years the US has been a dud but I keep watching hoping it will once again become the ultimate test. I want to see the best quality golf.  I think that's where this whole discussion of distance comes in.  Nicklaus Snead et all for the most part could swing much faster than they did.  Sometimes they would bash one but not usually.  Hogan did some long drive stuff at times early on and he was puttin the wood to it espescially for his height.  In order to score best these guys played a golf swing that was not maxed out because the ball spun so much that slight misfits were truly bad you had to manage the strike just right at high speed to keep spin down and get the launch right or it would be an embarrassing balloon ballflight.   They were playing the game of skill not the game of maximum speed alone.  Very self disciplined approach.  It kinda makes me mad when I hear younger folks say "part of the reason for the distance now is that players understand launch conditions better" Really?  To me it's preposterous to try to assert that modern players only in the last few years learned launch conditions.  It's also arrogant and incorrect.  Like gear effect also.  Heel low cuts and toe draws were shots people practiced with balata back to Jackie Burke! THE BALATA PLAYERS WERE MASTERS OF SPIN COMPARED TO THE GUYS NOW!  TO SAY THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING IS ABSOLUTELY VERY VERY INSULTING TO THEM AND ANYONE WHO IS CONNECTED WITH THEM!   They were masters because the higher spinning ball gave them much better feedback while developing their swings.  You have to know how to create certain launch conditions to get that balata out there like Norman or Nicklaus or whoever.  Maybe they did not know their numbers on Doppler but they ALL knew who could do it and who couldn't and more I,portent how THEY did it.  Now they are all bashing it because there's no reason not to.  The ball  doesn't spin as much and the clubs are forgiving.  The courses are setup so that being in the 'rough' is better than the fairway. You get brain dead robots like DJ out there hitting miles.  Where's the variation and challenge?  Where are the courses made to challenge the modern technology?  It's not good for the tour to make the game into a distance contest.  They are marketing the thing poorly and results have been showing and will show the next few years as more and more courses close. Golf with a higher spinning ball would be so cool to even watch on tv with shot tracer.  That's what golfers used to aspire to the low launch and correct shape.  They might not hit as far as pros but the shaping that's what's been totally lost today. I think with a game focused on power and distance over self control and skill you get a bore.  With most tour stops it's like watching a Ferrari F1 car racing a guy in a Prius.  (The Prius being the course.) A golfer with the skill of Corey Pavin simply couldn't make it today and that's sad.  Guy was a great competitor striker of the ball.  He was shaping fw wood shots into greens.  You don't see that stuff anymore and really the younger crowd doesn't know what they don't know.   To me the whole game of golf boils down to decisions and self knowledge and control and is made more interesting the more difficult the course gets.   With the modern week to week game with older courses and modern clubs it's basically a free minus six or more every week due to par fives alone for a good touring pro. This is a long rant to forgive me.  I just wish golf were more entertaining now.  It's largely not.  I'd like to see the pros have to face the challenge of a higher spinning ball and takeaway Some for and max volume on drivers and fw clubs.  The reason for this is I want to see what kind of level mankind can reach in this game.  I want to see the best quality.  IMO the way the game is goin is wrong for that.  It's a putting contest now.  They all bash it they all hit greens it's just who gets a hot putter. I wanna make it more challenging and truly separate the wheat from the chaff.  To me that would be more interesting. Or we can just leave things as they are and really never know what a great golfer is truly capable of because the game now really doesn't require that skill anymore.  Heck just carry a driver some short irons and wedges and a putter.   Sorry for the rant but many of us get angry when it's said that modern players have been taught new things by trackman.  Sorry guys,  equal some Nicklaus or Hogan or Knudson et all scores with balata then you can talk.  That's real feedback hit ball watch ball.  Ball no do what you want do something else! Happy Holidays!      
    • One thing I like about our semi-private course is that everyone is very friendly and welcoming. Our seniors group is fun to play with, although they sometimes forget that I'm one of the unretired! and have to go to work most days. The course is a Nicklaus design with lots of challenging holes. The drawback is that the developer envisioned Winged Foot Way Out West, sporting a private-equity membership with everyone living in $400,000 homes. Thus, he contracted for an extremely difficult course with lots of bunkers. Legend has it that Nicklaus cautioned the developer against going overboard on the difficulty of holes, and the complexity of the bunkering (as in high maintenance costs). Well, much less $$ showed up than was forecast, and the developer was forced to sell. Fast forward, the greens crew has had a rough job in recent years trying to keep the bunkers in repair. A few pits have been removed as they settled out oddly, or ended up permanently flooded.  But, those remaining really keep the greens crew busy. We just don't have a Winged Foot maintenance budget. One other drawback: the driving range is at the top of a sloping hill, so it's a bit had to determine your true club carries because you're hitting down hill. Overall, I really like the course, the crew and the members.
  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. DeadMan
      DeadMan
      (31 years old)
  • Get Great Gear with Amazon

×

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.