Connect with us

Equipment

Spotted: Ping i200 irons

Published

on

PGA Tour winner Ted Purdy hasn’t finished in the top-10 of a PGA Tour event since 2009, but he’s a favorite with golf equipment fans tonight.

The 43-year-old posted a photo on social media of a set of Ping irons marked “i200” that the company is yet to announce. “Now these are sweet,” he said. “The NEW @PingTour i200.”

What’s new about the i200 irons? What makes them “sweet?” It appears that Ping may be spilling the beans sooner rather than later.

See what GolfWRX Members are saying about the irons in our forum.

Your Reaction?
  • 526
  • LEGIT49
  • WOW49
  • LOL13
  • IDHT8
  • FLOP10
  • OB4
  • SHANK49

We share your golf passion. You can follow GolfWRX on Twitter @GolfWRX, Facebook and Instagram.

46 Comments

46 Comments

  1. Michael

    Jan 12, 2017 at 8:14 am

    Also see link: http://clubping.jp/product/. From there you can get to i200 specs, new putter line the Sigma G and Ping Glide 2.0 specs

  2. DevilDog18

    Jan 8, 2017 at 10:08 pm

    Mizuno T-Zoids! Yet cast….

  3. Big lefty

    Jan 8, 2017 at 5:14 am

    Most likely these are miura / shaped by / or custom shaped for x player by ping clubmaker then stamped with “ping” for the tour pro. The masses will get something that looks similar and plays very different. Wake up folks the stuff the big boys are playing is not at all the same so don’t let the marketing fool you. Get fit for something that suits your game and stick with it. I played on small tours and saw this first hand when moving up to the big tour for Monday’s believe me this was over fifteen years ago and this is the way it was and it has never changed.

  4. Chunkiebuck

    Jan 6, 2017 at 10:45 pm

    Sure looks familiar, didn’t TM do the ribbed look back in 2001?

  5. Dave R

    Jan 6, 2017 at 8:59 pm

    Ping has not made a good iron since the eye2. I have hit them all when they came out. Will stick to my mizuno …… thanks.

    • The Stallion

      Jan 7, 2017 at 11:32 am

      No …… thank you for that incredible comment! Enjoy your mizuno!

  6. Guia

    Jan 6, 2017 at 8:32 pm

    Basically, just another deep cavity iron, low back weighting, etc. I am sure it will work because all the others work also. Nothing to get excited about.

    I have a number of sets of pings, Eye2 BeCu, ISI Nickel, ISI BeCu, G30, G30 Max, and any number of drivers and putters. They all work well, but dependent on the lofts they all play the same.

    • Tom

      Jan 7, 2017 at 11:19 am

      or the person playing them. I played with a member who had the same set I have, His results are vastly different than mine

  7. Brian

    Jan 6, 2017 at 6:50 pm

    Finally, Ping has made a club I may actually put in my bag since the 1990s. Last Ping I played were Eye2s.

  8. GolfBum

    Jan 5, 2017 at 5:44 pm

    Hope they offer decent shafts on this model. I am looking at this release to see if they might go that direction. If other manufacturers like Mizuno can offer decent shafts at no upcharge for irons, why can it not be done by PING?

    No upcharge shafts by some manufacturers is classified as upcharge by PING, where I am from it is a very expensive to go outside the normal offerings, especially if you play regular shafts.

    Currently play PING clubs but might venture elsewhere if the shaft selections does not improve.

    • bob

      Jan 6, 2017 at 1:54 pm

      look at the base price of mizuno irons and you can understand why there is no upcharge.

    • The Stallion

      Jan 7, 2017 at 11:35 am

      There are 6 no charge steel shafts available. Most golfers can be well-fit into one of those. The I200 will retail for $125/club. Most Mizuno irons retail for $150/clubs. Would you rather Ping up the price across the board like that? I wouldn’t.

  9. Mat

    Jan 5, 2017 at 4:18 pm

    At an equipment website, you see a leaked photo, and you’re meowing about not seeing it top-down? What, are you going to be “that guy” that yells FINALLY when it is officially released? Ugh.

  10. Brian

    Jan 5, 2017 at 1:37 pm

    Agreed…I’d really like to see the topline and the sole.

  11. bogeypro

    Jan 5, 2017 at 11:27 am

    They look like TaylorMade RAC LT2 irons from 2005ish. I like them!

  12. TexasSnowman

    Jan 5, 2017 at 10:56 am

    Look VERY GOOD. Note to OEMs; lose the large logos, bright colored badges, etc and give us more options like this.

    This goes for everything in my opinion; for example, as a recreational golfer why does my golf bag need a giant manufacturer logo painted on the it?

  13. Brian

    Jan 5, 2017 at 10:12 am

    Decent looking Ping irons, for a change. I would consider those if they were forged and the production models looked like that. Knowing Ping, they’ll slap a colored badge on and Ugly them up.

  14. JR

    Jan 5, 2017 at 9:26 am

    Look like some 20 year old Taylor Made clubs!!

  15. Excited

    Jan 5, 2017 at 8:32 am

    I saw these in person and at address they look similar to the iblade iron (AWESOME). I was also told from someone I consider a highly reliable source that the MOI on this iron is BETTER than the wide soled G15 from a few years back. With the great looks, if it is truly that forgiving…. THEY WILL HAVE A WINNER!

  16. CARSON

    Jan 5, 2017 at 8:30 am

    these Irons are awesome on of my tour players were telling me about them and he said that there the best iron they have some out with in 10 years. the top line is super thin and the PW to the 4 iron look great the offset is perfect and the performance is great yall are going to love these most of the tour players will switch other then the guys playing the Iblades

    • Excited

      Jan 5, 2017 at 8:33 am

      They look flat awesome! I was unable to hit one though 🙁

  17. Jim

    Jan 5, 2017 at 7:59 am

    Look like a TM iron with a Ping CTP weight. After the elegance of the Ping I series this is a major disappointment at visually. And what’s with the name, shouldn’t it be Ping I-e2 to keep with the simpler names they were loud about with the recent releases, saying that the name would remain the same for each new release? They might still be a very good iron but they’re off to a poor start in my opinion.

  18. Prut

    Jan 5, 2017 at 7:05 am

    Ping RACs?

  19. Johnnylongballz

    Jan 5, 2017 at 3:07 am

    Sweet! Looks like the I25 and S55 made a beautiful baby.

    • Jack

      Jan 5, 2017 at 4:08 am

      Agree! Whoever designed these clubs, S55, iBlade should definitely get a raise. These are beautiful clubs.

    • Excited

      Jan 5, 2017 at 8:34 am

      TOTALLY AGREE!

  20. Nu

    Jan 5, 2017 at 2:44 am

    Wow. Talk about a straight up TM rip. With just the Ping CTP.

  21. Neil Cameron

    Jan 5, 2017 at 1:15 am

    look like miura cb57

  22. rymail00

    Jan 5, 2017 at 12:31 am

    Wow, they look great from the pics.

  23. Johnny Wells

    Jan 4, 2017 at 10:24 pm

    this looks reminds me of TM’s 360 irons a little bit

  24. NolanMBA

    Jan 4, 2017 at 10:05 pm

    Love the simplicity.

  25. coolhandbirdman

    Jan 4, 2017 at 9:59 pm

    Hope they stay this way, I don’t like badges on the iE1’s.

  26. Andrew

    Jan 4, 2017 at 9:06 pm

    Sexy. Looks like the i25 with a cleaner cavity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

pga tour

Ian Poulter WITB 2018

Published

on

Equipment is accurate as of the 2018 Honda Classic (2/20/2018).

Driver: Titleist 917D2 (9.5 degrees)
Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei Orange CK 60TX

3 Wood: Titleist 917F2 (16.5 degrees)
Shaft: Matrix Ozik TP7HDe 7X

Hybrid: Titleist 816 H2 (21 degrees)
Shaft: Aldila Tour Green ATX85H TX

Irons: Titleist 716 T-MB (4), Titleist 718 AP2 (5-PW)
Shaft: Project X LZ 130 7.0

Wedges: Titleist Vokey SM7 (52-12F, 56-14F, 60-04L)
Shaft: Project X LZ 7.0 (52), True Temper Dynamic Gold Tour Issue S400 (56, 60)

Putter: EvnRoll Tour ER
Grip: Odyssey Pistol

Putter: Rife Antigua Island Series
Grip: Odyssey Pistol

Ball: Titleist Pro V1x

Related:

Discussion: See what GolfWRX members are saying about Poulter’s clubs. 

Your Reaction?
  • 3
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK1

Continue Reading

Equipment

10 interesting photos from Wednesday at the Honda Classic

Published

on

From our featured image of Rory McIlroy putting in a different kind of work on the range in the pre-dawn hours of Wednesday morning, to shots of Tiger Woods’ similarly early pre-pro-am range work, to some intriguing shots Patrick Reed’s prototype Bettinardi putter, GolfWRX has plenty of fantastic photo content from PGA National.

Here are some of the best shots from Wednesday.

Tiger Woods at work prior to his crack-of-dawn pro-am tee time. Gentleman in the foreground: You do know that as the sun has not yet risen, you do not need a hat to aggressively combat its rays, right?

“My feet do not look like that at impact.”

All eyes on the Big Cat…except those focused on the live video on their cell phone screens…

Let’s take a closer look at Patrick Reed’s yardage book cover. Yep. As expected.

Do you think these two ever talk?

It looks like Captain Furyk already has some pre-Ryder Cup swag in the form of a putter cover.

If you’ve ever wondered why Rickie Fowler selected these interesting locations for his tattoos, this may be the answer: Visible when he holds his finish.

We’ve got a Pistol Pete sighting!

Patrick Reed’s droolworthy Bettinardi Dass prototype.

Fun fact: Wedges double as magnetic putter cover holders, as Jon Curran illustrates here. Healthy application of lead tape, as well, from the tour’s resident graffiti artist.

Wednesday’s Photos

Discussion: See what GolfWRX members are saying about the photos in our forums.

Your Reaction?
  • 9
  • LEGIT2
  • WOW0
  • LOL2
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK6

Continue Reading

Accessory Reviews

Review: FlightScope Mevo

Published

on

In 100 Words

The Mevo is a useful practice tool for amateur golfers and represents a step forward from previous offerings on the market. It allows golfers to practice indoors or outdoors and provides club speed, ball speed, smash factor, launch angle, spin rate, carry distance and flight time.

It also has a video capture mode that will overlay swing videos with the swing data of a specific swing. It is limited in its capabilities and its accuracy, though, which golfers should expect at this price point. All in all, it’s well worth the $499 price tag if you understand what you’re getting.

The Full Review

The FlightScope Mevo is a launch monitor powered by 3D Doppler radar. With a retail price of $499, it is obviously aimed to reach the end consumer as opposed to PGA professionals and club fitters.

The Mevo device itself is tiny. Like, really tiny. It measures 3.5-inches wide, 2.8-inches tall and 1.2-inches deep. In terms of everyday products, it’s roughly the size of an Altoids tin. It’s very easy to find room for it in your golf bag, and the vast majority of people at the range you may be practicing at won’t even notice it’s there. Apart from the Mevo itself, in the box you get a quick start guide, a charging cable, a carrying pouch, and some metallic stickers… more on those later. It has a rechargeable internal battery that reaches a full charge in about two hours and lasts for about four hours when fully charged.

As far as software goes, the Mevo pairs with the Mevo Golf app on your iOS or Android device. The app is free to download and does not require any subscription fees (unless you want to store and view videos of your swing online as opposed to using the memory on your device). The app is very easy to use even for those who aren’t tech savvy. Make sure you’re using the most current version of the firmware for the best results, though (I did experience some glitches at first until I did so). The settings menu does have an option to manually force firmware writing, but updates should happen automatically when you start using the device.

Moving through the menus, beginning sessions, editing shots (good for adding notes on things like strike location or wind) are all very easy. Video mode did give me fits the first time I used it, though, as it was impossible to maintain my connection between my phone and the Mevo while having the phone in the right location to capture video properly. The only way I could achieve this was by setting the Mevo as far back from strike location as the device would allow. Just something to keep in mind if you find you’re having troubles with video mode.

Screenshot of video capture mode with the FlightScope Mevo

Using the Mevo

When setting up the Mevo, it needs to be placed between 4-7 feet behind the golf ball, level with the playing surface and pointed down the target line. The distance you place the Mevo behind the ball does need to be entered into the settings menu before starting your session. While we’re on that subject, before hitting balls, you do need to select between indoor, outdoor, and pitching (ball flight less than 20 yards) modes, input your altitude and select video or data mode depending on if you want to pair your data with videos of each swing or just see the data by itself. You can also edit the available clubs to be monitored, as you will have to tell the Mevo which club you’re using at any point in time to get the best results. Once you get that far, you’re pretty much off to the races.

Testing the Mevo

I tested the FlightScope Mevo with Brad Bachand at Man O’ War Golf Center in Lexington, Kentucky. Brad is a member of the PGA and has received numerous awards for golf instruction and club fitting. I wanted to put the Mevo against the best device FlightScope has to offer and, luckily, Brad does use his $15,000 FlightScope X3 daily. We had both the FlightScope Mevo and Brad’s FlightScope X3 set up simultaneously, so the numbers gathered from the two devices were generated from the exact same strikes. Brad also set up the two devices and did all of the ball striking just to maximize our chances for success.

The day of our outdoor session was roughly 22 degrees Fahrenheit. There was some wind on that day (mostly right to left), but it wasn’t a major factor. Our setup is pictured below.

Outdoor testing setup with FlightScope X3 (foreground) and Mevo

The results of our outdoor testing are shown below. The testing was conducted with range balls, and we did use the metallic stickers. The range balls used across all the testing were all consistently the same brand. Man O’ War buys all new range balls once a year and these had been used all throughout 2017.  The 2018 batch had not yet been purchased at the time that testing was conducted.

Raw outdoor data captured with range balls including metallic stickers. Mevo data (blue) and X3 data (orange) were both generated from the same exact shots.

You’ll notice some peculiar data in the sand wedge spin category. To be honest, I don’t fully know what contributed to the X3 measuring such low values. While the Mevo’s sand wedge spin numbers seem more believable, you could visibly see that the X3 was much more accurate on carry distance. Below is a quick summary of the percent differences between each of the parameters as presented by the Mevo and the X3 in our outdoor session when separated out for each club. As previously mentioned, though, take sand wedge spin with a grain of salt.

Table showing the percent difference of each parameter between Mevo and X3 grouped by club (outdoor testing).

The first thing we noticed was that the Mevo displays its numbers while the golf ball is still in midair, so it was clear that it wasn’t watching the golf ball the entire time like the X3. According to the Mevo website, carry distance, height and flight time are all calculated while club speed, ball speed, launch angle and spin rate are measured. As for the accuracy of the measured parameters, the Mevo’s strength is ball speed. The accuracy of the other measured ball parameters (launch angle and spin rate) is questionable depending on certain factors (quality of strike, moisture on the clubface and ball, quality of ball, etc). I would say it ranges between “good” or “very good” and “disappointing” with most strikes being categorized as “just okay.”

As for the calculated parameters of carry distance, height and time, those vary a decent amount. Obviously, when the measurements of the three inputs become less accurate, the three outputs will become less accurate as a result. Furthermore, according to FlightScope, the Mevo’s calculations are not accounting for things like temperature, humidity, and wind. The company has also stated, though, that future updates will likely adjust for these parameters by using location services through the app.

Now, let’s talk about those metallic stickers. According to the quick start guide, the Mevo needs a sticker on every golf ball you hit, and before you hit each ball, the ball needs to be placed such that the sticker is facing the target. It goes without saying that it doesn’t sound like a whole lot of fun to spend time putting those stickers on every ball, let alone balls that will never come back to you if you’re at a public driving range. Obviously, people are going to want to avoid using the stickers if they can, so do they really matter? Below is a table of data showing the percent difference between the Mevo’s data and the X3’s data of what we collected outdoors with a driver and range balls with and without the use of the stickers.

Table showing how the percent difference of each parameter changes between Mevo and X3 when you use the metallic stickers and when you don’t

The FlightScope website says that the metallic stickers “are needed in order for the Mevo to accurately measure ball spin.” We observed pretty much the same as shown in the table above. The website also states they are working on alternative solutions to stickers (possibly a metallic sharpie), which I think is wise.

Another thing we thought would be worth testing is the impact of different golf balls. Below is a table of data showing the percent difference between the Mevo’s data and the X3’s data of what we collected outdoors with a driver and range balls as compared to Pro V1’s. All of this data was collected using the metallic stickers.

Table showing how the percent difference of each parameter changes between Mevo and X3 when you switch from range balls to Pro V1’s

As shown above, the data gets much closer virtually across the board when you use better quality golf balls. Just something else to keep in mind when using the Mevo.

Indoor testing requires 8 feet of ball flight (impact zone to hitting net), which was no problem for us. Our setup is pictured below. All of the indoor testing was conducted with Titleist Pro V1 golf balls using the metallic stickers.

Indoor testing setup with FlightScope X3 (foreground) and Mevo

The results of our indoor session are shown below.

Raw indoor data captured with Pro V1’s including metallic stickers. Mevo data (blue) and X3 data (orange) were both generated from the same exact shots.

Below is a quick summary of the percent differences between each of the parameters as presented by the Mevo and the X3 in our indoor session when separated out for each club.

Table showing the percent difference of each parameter between Mevo and X3 grouped by club (indoor testing)

On the whole, the data got much closer together between the two devices in our indoor session. I would think a lot of that can be attributed to the use of quality golf balls and to removing outdoor factors like wind and temperature (tying into my previous comment above).

As far as overall observations between all sessions, the most striking thing was that the Mevo consistently gets more accurate when you hit really good, straight shots. When you hit bad shots, or if you hit a fade or a draw, it gets less and less accurate.

The last parameter to address is club speed, which came in around 5 percent different on average between the Mevo and X3 based on all of the shots recorded. The Mevo was most accurate with the driver at 2.1 percent different from the X3 over all strikes and it was the least accurate with sand wedge by far. Obviously, smash factor accuracy will follow club speed for the most part since ball speed is quite accurate. Over every shot we observed, the percent difference on ball speed was 1.2 percent on average between the Mevo and the X3. Again, the Mevo was least accurate with sand wedges. If I remove all sand wedge shots from the data, the average percent difference changes from 1.2 percent to 0.7 percent, which is very, very respectable.

When it comes to the different clubs used, the Mevo was by far most accurate with mid irons. I confirmed this with on-course testing on a relatively flat 170-yard par-3 as well. Carry distances in that case were within 1-2 yards on most shots (mostly related to quality of strike). With the driver, the Mevo was reasonably close, but I would also describe it as generous. It almost always missed by telling me that launch angle was higher, spin rate was lower and carry distance was farther than the X3. Generally speaking, the Mevo overestimated our driver carries by about 5 percent. Lastly, the Mevo really did not like sand wedges at all. Especially considering those shots were short enough that you could visibly see how far off the Mevo was with its carry distance. Being 10 yards off on a 90 yard shot was disappointing.

Conclusion

The Mevo is a really good product if you understand what you’re getting when you buy it. Although the data isn’t good enough for a PGA professional, it’s still a useful tool that gives amateurs reasonable feedback while practicing. It’s also a fair amount more accurate than similar products in its price range, and I think it could become even better with firmware updates as Flightscope improves upon its product.

This is a much welcomed and very promising step forward in consumer launch monitors, and the Mevo is definitely worth a look if you’re in the market for one.

Your Reaction?
  • 110
  • LEGIT10
  • WOW2
  • LOL5
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP7
  • OB3
  • SHANK23

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Facebook

Trending