Finally, some real data on Iron forgiveness…

[Red4282]

4 hours ago, WristySwing said:

I haven't watched the video yet so maybe it is said in there, but it is interesting there is no data on high on the head strikes, which would be indicative of a slightly fat shot.  I'm seriously impressed by the Apex performance.  You've got what, like 3 yards difference between centre-toe, centre-heel, and centre-low?  P790 is also impressive on centre-heel, centre-toe and low strikes with about 6 yards.  The i230 is interesting, I will have to give that a test but it does look like it might have a bit more spread than the Apex but similar to the P790.

Yea the 790 and apex would have great dispersion if you missed center all the time. I almost think you should just throw out the data set for low heel and then look at dispersion as im not sure who really misses there much, its such a aweful miss. Probably not too far off from a hosel rocket

[ezra76]

7 hours ago, pjc said:

ZX5!

I looked at them and liked them. I never even hit the Apex 21's, bought them on a whim for $800 mint with PX 6.0's in the spring 4-PW. ZX 5's with s300's would most likely be a better fit for me.

[WristySwing]

2 hours ago, Red4282 said:

Yea the 790 and apex would have great dispersion if you missed center all the time. I almost think you should just throw out the data set for low heel and then look at dispersion as im not sure who really misses there much, its such a aweful miss. Probably not too far off from a hosel rocket

 

My fave part of the club head.

[Arlin964]

8 hours ago, pjc said:

ZX5!

That’s exactly the club I thought of when I read the description. ZX5 were great on toe shots for me. Lost almost no distance, and felt way less torqueing in my hands, as compared to ZX7. 

[J.Bex]

Bumping this as I went ahead and measured the distance data Cool Clubs had for each club, entered in Excel, and found the distance drop-off % on mishit vs center strike to see how the clubs fared in this forgiveness regard.  Higher drop-off percentages indicate higher distance dispersion, lower percentages indicate lower distance dispersion.  I ranked each club mishit 1-5, 1 as "best" 5 as "worst" for distance drop-off %.

 

 

Looking at these percentages, Ping i230 has the most #1s, and P790 has the most #5s.  Honestly I thought P790 would've had less drop-off for the low mishits, because of the face flex slot features helping retain ball speeds, but obviously not in this test.  It was though the only one to drop off less on low-center hits vs center-heel hits.  Also P790 and Apex 21 had the longest hits of all the clubs on center hits and mishits. 

 

Take the data as you wish, but Ping came out pretty good (no affiliation!).

 

[Red4282]

8 hours ago, joostin said:

Bumping this as I went ahead and measured the distance data Cool Clubs had for each club, entered in Excel, and found the distance drop-off % on mishit vs center strike to see how the clubs fared in this forgiveness regard.  Higher drop-off percentages indicate higher distance dispersion, lower percentages indicate lower distance dispersion.  I ranked each club mishit 1-5, 1 as "best" 5 as "worst" for distance drop-off %.

 

 

Looking at these percentages, Ping i230 has the most #1s, and P790 has the most #5s.  Honestly I thought P790 would've had less drop-off for the low mishits, because of the face flex slot features helping retain ball speeds, but obviously not in this test.  It was though the only one to drop off less on low-center hits vs center-heel hits.  Also P790 and Apex 21 had the longest hits of all the clubs on center hits and mishits. 

 

Take the data as you wish, but Ping came out pretty good (no affiliation!).

 

Id image the p790 and apex were the furthest due to lofts. Thanks for putting that together. Doesnt really bode well for fast flex faces and being forgiving (distance dispersion). 

[J.Bex]

1 hour ago, Red4282 said:

Id image the p790 and apex were the furthest due to lofts. Thanks for putting that together. Doesnt really bode well for fast flex faces and being forgiving (distance dispersion). 

Yeah likely lofts.  It's interesting the 2 clubs with maybe the most "tech" (and I mentioned Callaway and TM in the technologically advanced players club thread due to cup faces, VFT, slots) had the most drop-off.  I still would like to see ball speed / COR data for these mishits, but yeah all that didn't translate to performance vs the others.  My thought is... is the face flex/deformation and rebound always favorable to COR or actually dampening in certain cases?  Given less deformation of the ball I would've guessed favorable, but these numbers don't indicate that.

 

I think ideally the testing comparison would be apples to apples with dynamic lofts equal, and also have a blade as a control sample set.  Centering off the CG like it was suggested earlier in the thread is a good idea too.  In this case the ZX7 may be closest to that control as a single piece head without an undercut cavity.  That performed pretty well along with T100 and definitely i230.

 

Ping claims low CG on i230 (and high MOI as always).  It'll be interesting to see how those numbers come out in MPF measurements. 

[North Butte]

When I switched from Ping G20 irons (not particularly hot faces) to Ping G's (first irons I'd played with the higher COR) I did perceive there was some extra distance on tap for center hits. I thought my usual slightly high-toe contact shots reacted pretty much the same on the G 7-iron as with my old G20 7-iron. Kind of high and floaty, either straight or a smidge of fade, maybe 135 yards of carry. 

 

On center strikes the G20 7-iron would go a little over 140 with a similar initial trajectory except a slight draw instead of fade. But the G 7-iron kicked into overdrive when I pured one. Really high, low-spin bombs that would carry a full 150 yards and absolutely dead straight. They'd release a little on the greens although the flight was so high it wasn't too much of a problem with a 7-iron. 

 

So I think that's what I've found with new "tech" irons in a nutshell. They're just as "forgiving" as older irons on strikes away from the center but they give me an extra 5-8 yards on center hits so in relative terms there's more spread between a purely struck shot and a mediocre one.

 

For my game, it's a net plus I think. I'm not trying to cut the margins so thin that the relative spread between pure and high-toe matters. I'm not trying to fit very many approach shots in a window where 155 is dead over the green but 140 is plugged in the front bunker. I play it safer than that and I really like that high, low-spin ball flight on my good shots. I could see how better plays trying to get at difficult hole locations with an aggressive approach game might prefer tightening up the spread between good and middling shots a bit if they can. 

[nsxguy]

13 hours ago, joostin said:

Bumping this as I went ahead and measured the distance data Cool Clubs had for each club, entered in Excel, and found the distance drop-off % on mishit vs center strike to see how the clubs fared in this forgiveness regard.  Higher drop-off percentages indicate higher distance dispersion, lower percentages indicate lower distance dispersion.  I ranked each club mishit 1-5, 1 as "best" 5 as "worst" for distance drop-off %.

 

 

Looking at these percentages, Ping i230 has the most #1s, and P790 has the most #5s.  Honestly I thought P790 would've had less drop-off for the low mishits, because of the face flex slot features helping retain ball speeds, but obviously not in this test.  It was though the only one to drop off less on low-center hits vs center-heel hits.  Also P790 and Apex 21 had the longest hits of all the clubs on center hits and mishits. 

 

Take the data as you wish, but Ping came out pretty good (no affiliation!).

 

 

Great work joostin !!! Thanks. 👍

 

I'd forgotten about this thread. I hadn't watched the video and forgot to come back to it - but I just looked at it now.

 

At 1:56 it shows the white sticker dead center. It shows a small "dashed" circle around the SS and a larger dashed circle.

 

I'm assuming the 6 black dots on the club face are where the robot is striking the center of the golf ball.

 

The 2 low heel and toe strikes are visible outside that white sticker. The center-heel and center-toe dots are not visible but according to the earlier marking of those black dot are immediately above the lower heel-toe marks.

 

So, if those black dots reference the striking spot of the center of the ball, quite frankly, I'm not interested. This goes to my earlier post where I said if I strike the ball that far off center, I deserve whatever bad result I get. Now I certainly don't consider myself a great ball striker but I'm certainly not drawing any conclusions on the forgiveness or desirability of a club on any of those 4 strike positions.

 

So, I personally feel the heel and toe data, IF I've got those strike locations right, are basically meaningless,,,,, to ME.

 

And that white sticker brings me back to the effective sweet spot of the club face and how large it actually is. Or isn't. Didn't see any reference to the SS size.

 

Love that Cool Clubs guy on the video though - he and I seem to think very much alike.

 

[NRJyzr]

2 hours ago, North Butte said:

So I think that's what I've found with new "tech" irons in a nutshell. They're just as "forgiving" as older irons on strikes away from the center but they give me an extra 5-8 yards on center hits so in relative terms there's more spread between a purely struck shot and a mediocre one.

 

This is exactly why I'm *not* considering such clubs.  Only chiming in to provide contrast, and add yet another illustration that golf is very much a "personal season to taste" moment for us all.  🤔😉🙂

 

[North Butte]

13 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

This is exactly why I'm *not* considering such clubs.  Only chiming in to provide contrast, and add yet another illustration that golf is very much a "personal season to taste" moment for us all.  🤔😉🙂

 

I think a lot of it comes down to how much each of needs extra height and distance. Kind of a risk/reward or distance/accuracy tradeoff. If my typical Par 4 approach shot were a PW, 9-iron, 8-iron I could probably afford to try and optimize distance consistency. See as how mine's somewhere north of a 7-iron I'm already aiming for the parts of the green where coming up short on a mishit is OK. 

 

Every now and then I play with someone using old-school small headed, low-COR irons and their shots go higher and farther and flatter than I can hit with my high-COR shovels. I don't imagine they'd see a whole lot of scoring payoff if every time they hit the sweet spot it flew another 6-8 yards longer. 

 

Then again one of the young guys that play at my home course switched from Pro V1 to AVX because he liked the 10 extra yards he gets on his iron shots. Geez, he's already playing the back tees and reaching all the Par 5's in two so you wouldn't think a low spin ball like that is necessary. Different strokes...

[NRJyzr]

7 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Then again one of the young guys that play at my home course switched from Pro V1 to AVX because he liked the 10 extra yards he gets on his iron shots. Geez, he's already playing the back tees and reaching all the Par 5's in two so you wouldn't think a low spin ball like that is necessary. Different strokes...

 

Reminds me of late 90s baseball commercials, pimping the longball.  LOL

 

Arguably all starting with John Daly in 1991

 

[cliffhanger]

it appears to be a sales pitch here as one club is measured in distance by 10 yard increments and 10 yard right to left dispersion where the others are measured in 5 yard increments. also in order to show the same size graph, the Ping iron has an overall 50 yard distance grid compared to the 30 yard grids for the others... and then a 60 yard right to left dispersion compared to the 25-30 yard grids for the others.

 

What this means to me is that you shouldn't post this as "data" unless the graphic images are all consistent because unless you spot the differences here... one would assume that the Ping is significantly better by a mile... so it certainly appears to be a sales pitch here 100%.  

[Red4282]

2 hours ago, cliffhanger said:

it appears to be a sales pitch here as one club is measured in distance by 10 yard increments and 10 yard right to left dispersion where the others are measured in 5 yard increments. also in order to show the same size graph, the Ping iron has an overall 50 yard distance grid compared to the 30 yard grids for the others... and then a 60 yard right to left dispersion compared to the 25-30 yard grids for the others.

 

What this means to me is that you shouldn't post this as "data" unless the graphic images are all consistent because unless you spot the differences here... one would assume that the Ping is significantly better by a mile... so it certainly appears to be a sales pitch here 100%.  

They mentioned it in the video and has been mentioned multiple times in the thread. Visually, yes it can be a little deceiving, but if you just grab the actual numbers and compare, you can make some reasonable determinations from it. 

[North Butte]

4 hours ago, Red4282 said:

They mentioned it in the video and has been mentioned multiple times in the thread. Visually, yes it can be a little deceiving, but if you just grab the actual numbers and compare, you can make some reasonable determinations from it. 

From long habit (in Real Life, not golf) I always discount any graphical presentation of data where the scales are widely disparate. There are only two reasons for that. Either someone is trying to deliberate mislead you into believing a narrative or it's due to simply carelessness and/or incompetence.

 

If they are not competent to choose the proper scales for each panel in a multiple graph there's no reason to believe they are competent in doing the work that went into collecting and collating the data.

[Red4282]

3 hours ago, North Butte said:

From long habit (in Real Life, not golf) I always discount any graphical presentation of data where the scales are widely disparate. There are only two reasons for that. Either someone is trying to deliberate mislead you into believing a narrative or it's due to simply carelessness and/or incompetence.

 

If they are not competent to choose the proper scales for each panel in a multiple graph there's no reason to believe they are competent in doing the work that went into collecting and collating the data.

Seems like a stretch to me, but each to his own. There is another video on the process and things that go into the testing, and its quite thorough. Its not like ping made the video. Im sure the motive behind this testing is for people to come to them to get fit by them. If they have a huge database of clubs and robot performance they could in theory better fit people with that knowledge. Those robots arent cheap. All the OEMs do this testing but mysteriously they wont show us anything, but rather just give us vague marketing lines.

[North Butte]

6 hours ago, Red4282 said:

Seems like a stretch to me, but each to his own. There is another video on the process and things that go into the testing, and its quite thorough. Its not like ping made the video. Im sure the motive behind this testing is for people to come to them to get fit by them. If they have a huge database of clubs and robot performance they could in theory better fit people with that knowledge. Those robots arent cheap. All the OEMs do this testing but mysteriously they wont show us anything, but rather just give us vague marketing lines.

I'd imagine in this case it's carelessness or incompetence. They may have put in all sorts of expense and effort to do the testing but that doesn't mean they knew what they were doing in handling and presenting the data.

 

That weird mix of scales on the plots is incredibly sloppy. The principle behind my comments in this. When someone's presentation of data has such obvious, glaring errors it doesn't make sense for the reader to correct those obvious errors by rescaling the plots, measuring dots to try to work backwards to the raw numbers, etc. Because you're only correcting the obvious errors, there were almost certainly additional errors behind the scenes that you don't see. 

 

For example, if an accountant did your taxes and you caught a couple of places where numbers obviously didn't add up, would you just change those two numbers and assume he did everything else right? I personally would assume he is incompetent and that there are other non-obvious errors as well. Because no competent accountant should submit forms with numbers that a lay person can notice the moment they read the forms. 

Edited November 21, 2022 by North Butte

[Red4282]

42 minutes ago, North Butte said:

I'd imagine in this case it's carelessness or incompetence. They may have put in all sorts of expense and effort to do the testing but that doesn't mean they knew what they were doing in handling and presenting the data.

 

That weird mix of scales on the plots is incredibly sloppy. The principle behind my comments in this. When someone's presentation of data has such obvious, glaring errors it doesn't make sense for the reader to correct those obvious errors by rescaling the plots, measuring dots to try to work backwards to the raw numbers, etc. Because you're only correcting the obvious errors, there were almost certainly additional errors behind the scenes that you don't see. 

 

For example, if an accountant did your taxes and you caught a couple of places where numbers obviously didn't add up, would you just change those two numbers and assume he did everything else right? I personally would assume he is incompetent and that there are other non-obvious errors as well. Because no competent accountant should submit forms with numbers that a lay person can notice the moment they read the forms. 

Still think thats quite an exaggeration but it simply could come down to a different day that the ping was tested. Seems like an easy fix, to rescale the chart. But if you wanna just throw it all out because of a small oversight, then by all means go ahead, just better take the approach that  you cant believe any testing or data because I guarantee you you can find mistakes or oversights with everything. Hey I make mistakes at my job too, doesnt discount that 99% of my work is good and valuable ,right? Id give you more benefit of the doubt if i didnt see how they test in that second video. Very standardized, practical, thorough and professional. Trackman and a qc quad. Not like its some newb in his basement with a homemade robot and a $250 launch monitor. 🤷‍♂️

Edited November 21, 2022 by Red4282

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, Red4282 said:

Still think thats quite an exaggeration but it simply could come down to a different day that the ping was tested. Seems like an easy fix, to rescale the chart. But if you wanna just throw it all out because of a small oversight, then by all means go ahead, just better take the approach that  you cant believe any testing or data because I guarantee you you can find mistakes or oversights with everything. Hey I make mistakes at my job too, doesnt discount that 99% of my work is good and valuable ,right? Id give you more benefit of the doubt if i didnt see how they test in that second video. Very standardized, practical, thorough and professional. Trackman and a qc quad. Not like its some newb in his basement with a homemade robot and a $250 launch monitor. 🤷‍♂️

 

The difference is, if I make widgets for a living and 99% of them are perfect and 1 is bad, the 1 is thrown away and I keep on making widgets.

 

But in compiling data, or writing an article, if one thing is false, the data, or article, is false.

 

That said, in this particular case, there may be extenuating circumstances such as, perhaps the Ping was tested on a different day, or even a different time of day and the scale simply was set up incorrectly and everything else was done according to Hoyle.

 

But NB has a point. Figures don't lie, but liars figure.

 

Note, I am NOT saying this test is invalid because of that, but there is a case for one to be a bit skeptical.

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

10 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

what exaclty is their to be skeptical of? What is the motive?
 

And the data isnt false, at least to our knowledge. If we are going down this road, then every test or data form TXG, MGS, is totally invalid as well where its highly edited behind closed doors. I just saw a video today with MGS on driver sound, where there was an obvious typo, it said 220hz where it was meant to be 2200 hz. Did i think it was intentional? No. Does it invalidate their work? No. 

The biggest issue with the Cool Club test approach was not doing a good job of lining up impact to drive the CG of the club through or just below the CG of the ball.  That means the "center" shot impact conditions for the various clubs may have been different enough to change results and conclusions.  Maybe what they did was good enough or maybe not.  We just can't tell based on their description.

 

Their data scaling issue in the graphs was probably just sloppiness, but is further indication that their attention to detail wasn't as good as what most would like.  They did alot of good with this testing, but they could have been very good leaving little to no ambiguity with the results. They just didn't quite get there.

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, Red4282 said:

what exaclty is their to be skeptical of? What is the motive?
 

And the data isnt false, at least to our knowledge. If we are going down this road, then every test or data form TXG, MGS, is totally invalid as well where its highly edited behind closed doors. I just saw a video today with MGS on driver sound, where there was an obvious typo, it said 220hz where it was meant to be 2200 hz. Did i think it was intentional? No. Does it invalidate their work? No. 

 

What about "Note, I am NOT saying this test is invalid because of that, but there is a case for one to be a bit skeptical" is unclear to you ?

 

What there is to be skeptical about has already been mentioned by NB and TP has gone over it again. Sloppy is sloppy.

 

Their (possible) motive ? I don't know. Is Ping publicly traded ?

 

 

[North Butte]

37 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

Their (possible) motive ? I don't know. Is Ping publicly traded ?

For any information posted on social media, the only motive required is for it to convey a good narrative that will get lots and lots of people to view it. Obviously there is a large audience for the story they are telling, the fact that a relative handful of us notice the sloppiness is utterly meaningless in terms of their basic motivation. 

[Valtiel]

3 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The biggest issue with the Cool Club test approach was not doing a good job of lining up impact to drive the CG of the club through or just below the CG of the ball.  That means the "center" shot impact conditions for the various clubs may have been different enough to change results and conclusions.  Maybe what they did was good enough or maybe not.  We just can't tell based on their description.

 

Their data scaling issue in the graphs was probably just sloppiness, but is further indication that their attention to detail wasn't as good as what most would like.  They did alot of good with this testing, but they could have been very good leaving little to no ambiguity with the results. They just didn't quite get there.

Yeah you really just need a robot striking in the same locations, both relative to the visual center and to the actual measured CG to really get definitive data here. Everything else will fall short to one degree or another. 

[Red4282]

Curious, do any if you have your cog mapped out on your irons, mark it and you try to hit that? How do you even know the cog isnt dead center? You dont. Id imagine most manufacturers try to get that cog close to center as possible because thats usually where we are intending to hit it. Maybe not, I dunno.
 

Sorry, i find it hilarious to nitpick it to death for anything to discredit it. Maybe its because the results dont align with what YOU have been told. Im not here saying its a flawless test, but its something, i guess if you don't like it we can just stick our heads in the sand and keep believing myths and folklore. Anyways i find the results very interesting and tangible, and will be interested in seeing more of their tests.

[North Butte]

6 hours ago, Red4282 said:

Curious, do any if you have your cog mapped out on your irons, mark it and you try to hit that? How do you even know the cog isnt dead center? You dont. Id imagine most manufacturers try to get that cog close to center as possible because thats usually where we are intending to hit it. Maybe not, I dunno.
 

Sorry, i find it hilarious to nitpick it to death for anything to discredit it. Maybe its because the results dont align with what YOU have been told. Im not here saying its a flawless test, but its something, i guess if you don't like it we can just stick our heads in the sand and keep believing myths and folklore. Anyways i find the results very interesting and tangible, and will be interested in seeing more of their tests.

Wow, talk about narratives. That is one giant leap you're making there. Some of us are pointing out that their way of presenting their result is sloppy and possibly misleading. And a couple comments point out ways in which they could have made their actual testing more rigorous. You're creating some straw men (or women) who believe some vague "myths and folklore" when all we're doing is pointing out that these results are not convincing of anything one way or another because they're so poorly presented. 

 

Speaking of myself and I'm pretty sure ThinkingPlus (likely nsxguy as well), some of us have spent a big chunk of our lifetimes dealing with issues relating to collecting and presenting these sorts of data. Believe me, in much more important matters than dispersion patterns of golf clubs I've seen groups spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on studies and then come up with graphs that are nearly as crap as these. Any innumerate doofus can cut and paste a bunch of cool looking graphs from Excel or some app to "prove" whatever point they're making. When that happens, some of us feel obliged to point it out.

 

Pointing out errors in someone's graphs or logical fallacies in the way they choose to set up their tests is not in service of promoting opposite conclusions. I don't think any of the three of us I've mentioned have any rooting interest at all in which clubs have better dispersion than others. We just have an interest in seeing a believable, straightforward, not garbled presentation of whatever results these guys came up with for all the time and effort they invested in doing the tests.

 

It's a pity when someone does the hard work (the testing and data collection) then ruins it by making rookie mistakes in presenting the results. 

 

But for sure, for every "nitpicker" like me there 1000 people like yourself who love a good story with pretty pictures and can't be bothered with noticing the details don't actually make sense because of the way they're presented. In this particular case, it matters not at all. However, you might find that developing some rudimentary quantitative skills will help you in situations where the sloppy and/or misleading graphics you're consuming might do you some real harm. But we've given it our best shot and at least for you at least we've failed. Pity. Maybe someone else reading the thread will learn something. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by North Butte

[Red4282]

25 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Wow, talk about narratives. That is one giant leap you're making there. Some of us are pointing out that their way of presenting their result is sloppy and possibly misleading. And a couple comments point out ways in which they could have made their actual testing more rigorous. You're creating some straw men (or women) who believe some vague "myths and folklore" when all we're doing is pointing out that these results are not convincing of anything one way or another because they're so poorly presented. 

 

Speaking of myself and I'm pretty sure ThinkingPlus (likely nsxguy as well), some of us have spent a big chunk of our lifetimes dealing with issues relating to collecting and presenting these sorts of data. Believe me, in much more important matters than dispersion patterns of golf clubs I've seen groups spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on studies and then come up with graphs that are nearly as crap as these. Any innumerate doofus can cut and paste a bunch of cool looking graphs from Excel or some app to "prove" whatever point they're making. When that happens, some of us feel obliged to point it out.

 

Pointing out errors in someone's graphs or logical fallacies in the way they choose to set up their tests is not in service of promoting opposite conclusions. I don't think any of the three of us I've mentioned have any rooting interest at all in which clubs have better dispersion than others. We just have an interest in seeing a believable, straightforward, not garbled presentation of whatever results these guys came up with for all the time and effort they invested in doing the tests.

 

It's a pity when someone does the hard work (the testing and data collection) then ruins it by making rookie mistakes in presenting the results. 

 

But for sure, for every "nitpicker" like me there 1000 people like yourself who love a good story with pretty pictures and can't be bothered with noticing the details don't actually make sense because of the way they're presented. In this particular case, it matters not at all. However, you might find that developing some rudimentary quantitative skills will help you in situations where the sloppy and/or misleading graphics you're consuming might do you some real harm. But we've given it our best shot and at least for you at least we've failed. Pity. Maybe someone else reading the thread will learn something. 

Wow, quite a statement there… I said from the very beginning how the graph was scaled wrong, they said it as well, right off the bat. Pretty transparent if you ask me. So yes I noticed details and am not just enamored with pretty pictures 🙄. We can just agree to disagree. Again, Id love Oems to release this type of stuff, but hint hint, theres a *reason* they dont.
 

I dont have a rooting interest either, but there are clear differences here, which dont align with some opinions Ive heard multiple times on other threads. Cant help but think thats where the pushback is from.  Maybe Im wrong for assuming that and if so, apologies in advance. I dont really have any interest in doing this any more, the back and forth so, Ill just leave it at that. Others can make up their own minds on what has been presented. 

[North Butte]

1 minute ago, Red4282 said:

Wow, quite a statement there… I said from the very beginning how the graph was scaled wrong, they said it as well, right off the bat. Pretty transparent if you ask me. So yes I noticed details and am not just enamored with pretty pictures 🙄. We can just agree to disagree. Again, Id love Oems to release this type of stuff, but hint hint, theres a *reason* they dont.
 

I dont have a rooting interest either, but there are clear differences here, which dont align with some opinions Ive heard multiple times on other threads. Cant help but think thats where the pushback is from.  Maybe Im wrong for assuming that and if so, apologies in advance. I dont really have any interest in doing this any more, the back and forth so, Ill just leave it at that. Others can make up their own minds on what has been presented. 

If you're referring to the continual "Blades vs SGI" type True Believer stuff on the forum, to me that constant whine is background noise like a bad case of tinnitus. It didn't seem like that was prevalent in this particular thread but maybe it was and I've just gotten too adept at tuning it out. 😇

[WristySwing]

1 hour ago, North Butte said:

If you're referring to the continual "Blades vs SGI" type True Believer stuff on the forum, to me that constant whine is background noise like a bad case of tinnitus. It didn't seem like that was prevalent in this particular thread but maybe it was and I've just gotten too adept at tuning it out. 😇

 

I agree.  I didn't see anything about that either.  It's very clear that the i230 is consistent.  Which it should be, Ping literally designed it from the ground up to do that as that what Tour Pros and high level amateurs demand, and those are the ones these clubs the i-series is usually targeted towards.  It is in all of the talking points and white papers from Ping on the iron.  I said earlier in the thread, when you look at the scaling, the lateral dispersion is actually better with some of the so-called "hot" irons.  The post that Joostin did above is great, but it only accounts for % distance drop off from the middle (forward/backward dispersion) and speaks little to the lateral dispersion many of us are talking about and feel was represented poorly.

 

From that data alone it is very clear that the harder to hit irons are the worst for forgiveness.  It's plain as day in the charts.  The ZX7 and T100 have shots that are straying as far as 15+ yards offline from the median line.   The Apex and P790 are equal (if not better) than the Ping.  It is just hard to see because of the poor scaling.  So I am not sure where @Red4282 is coming to the conclusion at the beginning of their post with "The two “hot face irons” (apex and p790) [...] no more forgiving than anything else on misses."  Which is clearly false given the graphs.  Sure they have hot spots, fine, but to say they are no more "forgiving" is untrue, the lateral dispersion clearly indicates they are tighter than the other irons when struck poorly and potentially even better than the Ping had the scales been fixed, so we can only say for now it seems to equal the Ping.

Edited November 22, 2022 by WristySwing

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, WristySwing said:

 

I agree.  I didn't see anything about that either.  It's very clear that the i230 is consistent.  Which it should be, Ping literally designed it from the ground up to do that as that what Tour Pros and high level amateurs demand, and those are the ones these clubs the i-series is usually targeted towards.  It is in all of the talking points and white papers from Ping on the iron.  I said earlier in the thread, when you look at the scaling, the lateral dispersion is actually better with some of the so-called "hot" irons.  The post that Joostin did above is great, but it only accounts for % distance drop off from the middle (forward/backward dispersion) and speaks little to the lateral dispersion many of us are talking about and feel was represented poorly.

 

From that data alone it is very clear that the harder to hit irons are the worst for forgiveness.  It's plain as day in the charts.  The ZX7 and T100 have shots that are straying as far as 15+ yards offline from the median line.   The Apex and P790 are equal (if not better) than the Ping.  It is just hard to see because of the poor scaling.  So I am not sure where @Red4282 is coming to the conclusion at the beginning of their post with "The two “hot face irons” (apex and p790) [...] no more forgiving than anything else on misses."  Which is clearly false given the graphs.  Sure they have hot spots, fine, but to say they are no more "forgiving" is untrue, the lateral dispersion clearly indicates they are tighter than the other irons when struck poorly and potentially even better than the Ping had the scales been fixed, so we can only say for now it seems to equal the Ping.

Ya gotta suck me right back into it eh? Lol. The two spring hot face irons had the biggest dropoff from center hits. The worst vertical dispersion. That was the point i was trying to express. If you want to talk horizontal, other than the zx7, they were all very similar, but nothing was clear cut BETTER, heck if you throw out low heels for all clubs they are essentially the same….so hence those irons are no more forgiving overall as some like to claim. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Red4282

[ernotte]

On 11/4/2022 at 6:27 PM, Red4282 said:

 

Saw this video today, and finally someone has done some robotic testing with different irons and charting strikes and dispersion.

 

Ive screenshotted the dispersion charts and noticed a few things. Here they are (note that scaling is different so visually its not accurate):

 

 

Heres a few nuggets I noticed: all mishits missed right of target.  The zx7 had the worst lateral dispersion (15 yards). Ping was the best at 5 yards, while everything else was appx 7-8 yards.

 

Center heel and low center are by far the best place to miss, but low heel is dreadfull.

 

The two “hot face irons” (apex and p790) have the worst vertical dispersion, and the biggest gap from a center strike to the best mishit….essentially, its hot in the middle but no more forgiving than anything else on misses. 
 

Cool clubs said they would be doing more of this and releasing it for public l, which is great. Cant wait to see some blades in there.

This is really interesting.  I thought those clubs were supposed to be more forgiving.  So could it be said that player's irons are actually more forgiving?