Connect with us





Anybody who’s been on this board for any amount of time tends to get a feel for what clubs garner the most buzz and, more importantly, what clubs live up to that hype. For the last two years PING’s G15 driver and irons have been in a class few others can claim. Recognizing this, PING followed the same formula to make improvements on an already incredible club.

Now, in the G20 series, PING decided to reemphasize the concept of having a complete set design. They wanted to do away with the idea of having a favorite club that just seems to fit your swing really well by matching the entire set to your swing. This is not a new concept, even to PING, but with the advanced technologies they have available, and their long history of designing clubs from an understanding of engineering and physics, they have matched these sets from top to bottom by examining and matching system mass, MOI about the hosel axis, CG position of the clubhead, etc., to synchronize the natural head rotation or delivery of the club. This provides fitters the flexibility to fit for trajectory and distance gapping without having to worry about having golfers adjust their swing to different clubs.

Link to more Pics and discussion here…


For the G20 Driver, PING utilized the high balance point shaft technology first employed in the G15, and took it a little further. By using a counterbalanced shaft, there were able to add more weight to the head, lighten the shaft, and keep the system mass and swingweight the same. This allowed PING to add more mass to the head which delivers more energy to the ball.  The G15 added 5 grams to their standard G10 headweight and the G20 added another 2, yielding a current driver headweight of 203 grams.  Testing shows that this concept adds distance and forgiveness as you're not slowing the clubhead during the swing and you're increasing inertia from the increased head mass.

In verifying this concept, PING tested clubs of otherwise same specifications, including shaft specs (swingweight, stiffness, torque, kick point, etc.), only changing the total system mass from 270, 286, and 304 grams between the three.  They discovered that clubhead and ball speeds were not statistically significantly faster in any of the system weights, but distance and forgiveness were best with the heavier setup.  Additionally, real world testing showed that there are benefits in having a more natural progression from your driver as per the complete set design outlined above as golfers don’t have to fight their swing going from a superlight driver to a heavier fairway or iron.

While not surprising, one point that bears mentioning deals with the G20‘s standard shaft length of 45.75 inches (and D3 swingweight). While this seems overly-long, especially to the GolfWRX membership where 45” seems to be the preference, it’s actually the standard length PING has stayed with since the TiSI. When the USGA published their standard for measuring, PING was using a 56º sole plate and measuring to the end of the ungripped shaft. When the standard of measurement required a 60º sole plate and measurement to the end of a gripped club, PING opted to change their published lengths rather than shorten what they’ve been doing. They also discovered through player testing that golfers can handle this length with no significant drawbacks on the course and without forcing golfers to fight their swing.

In the G20 driver, PING was able to lower and move weight even further back to optimize trajectory. Bubba's long because he launches 16º at 1800 RPM.  And SlingMan is able to launch it even higher with lower spin to reach even farther distances–so there's still lots of distance to be gamed through trajectory optimization without even touching ball speed.

For the G20 driver, PING changed the material to Ti811 from Ti64: they are both very similar in terms of strength and elongation, but Ti811 is slightly lighter and less dense, so they can utilize more volume to mess with the thickness variances to better optimize CG and inertia.  A larger head profile increases inertia, especially along the horizontal AND vertical axises and PING was able to increase the face area over the G15.  The G20 is constructed from a cast body with the variable thickness sheet face.  This allows to take weight away from some areas and add elsewhere and requires only one weld.

Driver testing between the G15 and G20 on PingMan and Player testing showed distance increases, and tighter dispersion across the board for swing speeds (spin rates were close between the two with some overlaps depending on several factors).



In the G20 PING made a fairway that was easy to get up in the air through center of gravity and trajectory optimization.  Made club deeper front to back to move the CG even lower and to the back.  By increasing the dynamic launch angle, they were able to strengthened the standard loft of the 3 wood back to 15º.  The 4 wood is same length as the 3, so it’s basically a higher lofted 3 wood. PING has found it to work even better with over 60% of golfers getting more optimal performance out of 4 wood in player testing. In fact, Bubba plays a 4 wood.

Often times, when companies make improvements, they’re usually on the smaller scale. Such is true in the vertical axis of the fairway where PING was able to improved MOI for heel-to-toe hits by 4%. HOWEVER, PING increased the MOI on the vertical axis by 25%, making it significantly more forgiving on high and low mishits. This is especially important as it seems overly easy to hit a fairway thin (just me?).

So golfers can expect less distance loss on fairway mishits in the G20, and slightly increased overall distance as the launch conditions have been optimized. Across the board, in both player and PingMan testing, the G20 fairways produced higher ball speeds because they were able to slightly lower the spin and increase the launch angle despite strengthening the standard loft resulting in longer distances…again–especially on mishits.



Not going to lie: this was the club I was least interested in going in, especially after seeing it was going to resemble the G15. However, after listening to the presentation and, more importantly, hitting it, it is the club I’m most excited for!

When PING designed the G15 hybrid, they took a 3 iron face profile and built around that. Taking Karsten Solheim’s original concept in incorporating offset, they were able to greatly increase launch angle without raising spin. Additionally, the design of the club increases the moment of inertia by 50% over the standard design. This provides significantly more forgiveness, tighter dispersion, and less twisting from mishits. And again, the offset increases the dynamic launch without increasing spin, especially on high and low mishits because of the high MOI, giving significantly more distance control and less variance between flushed shots and mishits.

Based on feedback of the G15, PING made adjustments in the G20 hybrid to appeal to more people. One complaint was that the club appeared too upright, especially in conjunction with the higher toe, so PING shortened the club from heel-to-toe, moving the CG in a bit, allowing them to bend the lie angle flatter by 2º. This also reduced the toe-down droop seen at higher swing speeds. Despite this move, they were able to keep the same MOI. PING also increased the versatility of the club by increasing the heel-toe sole curvature.

One point of interest is that complaints of the G20 by actual owners of that club were minimal. The voiced complaints were overwhelmingly made by people who never bothered to hit the club…myself included. At demo days, the feedback from golfers who actually hit the club was very positive. PING is hoping that the changes made will get more people to pick it up and give it a try. In test results, the G20 hybrid performed very similarly to the G15. Same goes for player testing. However, player perceptions were drastically improved.


Your Reaction?
  • 0
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK0

GolfWRX is the world's largest and best online golf community. Expert editorial reviews, breaking golf tour and industry news, what to play, how to play and where to play. GolfWRX surrounds consumers throughout the buying, learning and enrichment process from original photographic and video content, to peer to peer advice and camaraderie, to technical how-tos, and more. As the largest online golf community we continue to protect the purity of our members opinions and the platform to voice them. We want to protect the interests of golfers by providing an unbiased platform to feel proud to contribute to for years to come. You can follow GolfWRX on Twitter @GolfWRX and on Facebook.

1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Maurice Yuen

    Nov 4, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    Dear Sir,
    What is the difference between TFC 330D & 169D?


Leave a Reply

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


Members’ Choice: The top-5 drivers that golfers want to test in 2018



Golf’s “off-season” is upon us and the PGAM Show in Orlando is quickly approaching in January, which means it’s time to start thinking about the upcoming driver releases.

We’ve seen a few companies launch their “2018” lines already — such as Cobra with its new King F8 and F8+ — while speculation swirls around the companies who have yet to announce their newest products. For instance, we’ve spotted a new “TaylorMade M4″ driver, and a new “Rogue” driver from Callaway. If history repeats itself and Titleist remains on a two-year product cycle, then we’ll see a replacement for the 917 line sometime in 2018, as well.

The question we posed to our GolfWRX Members recently was, which new or unreleased driver has you most excited heading into 2018? Below are the results and a selection of comments about each driver.

Click here to join the discussion!

Note: The comments below have been minimally edited for brevity and grammar. 

Titleist (7.39 percent of votes)

BDoubleG: I know it’s well down the road, but the Titleist 919 is what I’m most looking forward to. I played the 910 until this year and loved it, but I realized that I wasn’t getting much in the way of distance gains with the 915/917, and I was just leaving too many yards on the table. I know it’s a cliche, but I was seeing considerable gains with my G400LS, then my M2 I have now.

I feel like Titleist has been hurting in the driver market share category (and probably elsewhere), as I think a lot of people think that the 913, 915 and 917 have been minor refreshes in a world where almost everyone else has been experimenting with structure (jailbreak, turbulators) or with COG (spaceports, SLDR, G-series extreme back CG). I think if Titleist is going to recapture some of their market share, they will need to start taking an interest in stepping outside of their comfort zone to catch up with everyone else. Maybe I’m hoping for too much, but a D2-style head with ample forgiveness and low-spin (maybe a back-front weight), with the same great sound of the 917, and hopefully getting rid of the “battery taped to the sole” look would be a huge hit in my book.

I’m really looking forward to seeing what they come up with…and I hope I’m not disappointed.

Mizuno GT-180 or otherwise (8.87 percent of votes)

mrmikeac: After thoroughly testing the Mizuno ST-180 and seeing the distance gains I was getting from my Epic, I can’t wait for the GT to get here. Cobra would be next in line for me, but Mizzy really did something special with that JPX-900 and it seems to look like they’re going the same route with these drivers. Excellent feel, forgiveness and simple but effective tech. 

Callaway Rogue, Rogue Sub Zero or otherwise (17.73 percent of votes)

cvhookem63: It seems like we’re not getting a lot of “NEW” this time — just some same lines “improved” on a little. I’m interested to try the Rogue line and M3/M4 line to see if they improved on their previous models. The Cobra F8+ is intriguing to me, as well. I’d like to compare those three to see how they stack up. 

tj7644: Callaway Rogue. It’s gotta make me hit straighter drives right? It sure can’t be my swing…

Equipto: Callaway Rogue Sub Zero, and that’s about it. Most of my testing will be with shafts I presume. 

bangabain: Excited to give the Rogue a shot, although with the hope that there’s a little more fade bias despite the lack of sliding weight.

TaylorMade M3, M4 or otherwise (27.09 percent of votes)

DeCuchi: TaylorMade M3 of course, and the F8+. I’m more interested in the fairways this year though. TaylorMade M4 fairways and Rogue fairways are top of my list. 

elwhippy: TaylorMade M3 and M4. Not owned a TM driver for several seasons and want something with a bit more power than the Ping G Series…

cradd10: M3. Still rocking an OG M1. Super solid driver. Curious to see if the updated version can beat it. 

Cobra F8/F8+ (33.66 percent of votes)

WAxORxDCxSC: I sure want to like the F8 based on looks (I understand I’m possibly in the minority on that one at GolfWRX).

TWshoot67: For me, it’s three drivers: the Cobra F8, F8+ and TM M4. 

The General: Cobra F8 is going to dominate everything, just wait, on the F8

Ace2000: Definitely F8/F8+. Love my Bio Cell+ and can’t help but wonder if these perform as good as they look. 

Click here to join the discussion!

Your Reaction?
  • 193
  • LEGIT19
  • WOW8
  • LOL4
  • IDHT3
  • FLOP8
  • OB4
  • SHANK96

Continue Reading


True Linkswear goes back to its spikeless roots



True Linkswear is getting back to its roots, while expanding the singular golf shoe brand’s reach at the same time.

The Tacoma, Washington, company’s Director/Partner, Justin Turner, told us that with the release of the two new models, the company is course-correcting from a move toward the mainstream, spiked golf shoes, and a loss of identity.

In addition to durability issues, Turner said the core True Linkswear customer didn’t appreciate the shift — or the deluge of models that followed.

So, in a sense, the two-model lineup both throws a bone to True devotees and casts a wider net.

Turner and company asked: “If we wanted to restart the brand….what would we value?” A commitment to the brand’s core outsider identity, style as articulated in early models, and an emphasis on quality led Turner on multiple trips to China to survey suppliers in early 2017. Eventually, the company settled on a manufacturing partner with a background in outdoor gear and hiking shoes.

“We’ve spent the last few years scouring the globe for the best material sourcing, reputable factories, advanced construction techniques, and time-tested fundamentals to build our best shoes yet. No cheap synthetics, no corners cut.”

Eventually, True settled on two designs: The Original, which, not surprisingly, has much in common with the zero-drop 2009 industry disrupting model, and the Outsider: a more athletic-style shoe positioned to attract a broader audience.

True Linkswear Original: $149

The company emphasizes the similarity in feel between the Original and early True Linkswear models, suggesting that players will feel and connect to the course “in a whole new way.”

  • Gray, White, Black colorways
  • Waterproof full grain leather
  • Thin sole with classic True zero-drop heel
  • 12.1 oz
  • Sockfit liner for comfort
  • Natural width box toe

True Linkswear Outsider: $169

With the Outsider, True Linkswear asked: “What if a golf shoe could be more? Look natural in more environments?”

  • Grey/navy, black, white colorways
  • EVA midsole for lightweight cushioning
  • Full grain waterproof leather
  • 13.1 oz (thicker midsole than the Original)

The company envisions both shoes being worn on course and off.

True Linkswear introduced the more durable and better-performing Cross Life Tread with both models. Turner says the tread is so good, you can wear the shoes hiking.

Both models are available now through the company website only. True Linkswear plans to enter retail shops slowly and selectively.

Your Reaction?
  • 92
  • LEGIT6
  • WOW0
  • LOL1
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP4
  • OB2
  • SHANK22

Continue Reading


Sean O’Hair and Steve Stricker’s Winning WITBs from the 2017 QBE Shootout



The team of Steve Stricker and Sean O’Hair closed the QBE Shootout with an 8-under 64 for a two-shot win over Graeme McDowell and Shane Lowry. O’Hair made a timely eagle on the par-5 17th hole at Tiburon Golf Club to lock up the first place prize of $820,000 ($410,000 each).

Here’s a look at their bags.

Sean O’Hair

Driver: Titleist 917D2 (9.5 degrees)
Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei CK Pro White Prototype 60TX

3 Wood: Titleist 917F2 (15 degrees)
Shaft: Mitsubishi Diamana S+ Limited Edition 70TX

5 Wood: Titleist 915F (18 degrees)
Shaft: Mitsubishi Rayon Diamana S+ Limited Edition 80TX

Irons: Titleist 716 T-MB (4-iron), Titleist 718 AP2 (5-PW)
Shafts: True Temper Dynamic Gold Tour Issue X100

Wedges: Titleist Vokey Design SM7 prototype (50, 54 and 58 degrees)
Shafts: True Temper Dynamic Gold Tour Issue S400

Putter: Scotty Cameron prototype

Golf Ball: Titleist Pro V1

Related: Sean O’Hair WITB

Steve Stricker

Driver: Titleist 913D3 (8.5 degrees)
Shaft: Fujikura Motore Speeder VC 8.2X

3 Wood: Titleist 915F (13.5 degrees)
Shaft: Mitsubishi Rayon Tensei CK Pro White 80TX Prototype

Hybrid: Titleist 816H1 (17.0 degrees)
Shaft: Fujikura Motore Speeder VC 9.2X

Irons: Titleist 718 CB (3-9)
Shafts: KBS Tour Prototype

Wedges: Titleist Vokey Design SM6 (46, 54 and 60 degrees)
Shafts: True Temper Dynamic Gold S400 w/ Sensicore

Putter: Odyssey White Hot 2

Golf Ball: Titleist Pro V1x

Related: Steve Stricker WITB 2017

Note: We originally reported Stricker had a Scotty Cameron putter in the bag, per Titleist’s equipment report. Stricker did, however, have a Odyssey White Hot putter in play during the final round of the QBE Shootout.

Your Reaction?
  • 64
  • LEGIT4
  • WOW1
  • LOL2
  • IDHT3
  • FLOP2
  • OB1
  • SHANK7

Continue Reading

19th Hole