755 or s58

[puremoney]

Which one is better

I'm trying to decide which ones to buy- 4 hcp 90mph ss

[nick01]

755's more offset

s58's less offset almost as forgiving and if ur a 4hcp u can handle these

[Viking Golfer]

This is real easy:

 

S-58 :)

 

Titleist makes OK irons, but if really have to buy Titleist irons then why get a forged stainles steel - if you would like to get a forged iron, then for heavens sake avoid stainless steel. Go get a forged carbon steel iron - like i.e. the 695 series from Titleist, but even better a Miura, Mizuno or other Asian forged brand.

 

If you consider stainlees steel, then go for cast quality - go for Ping S 58.

 

The S 58 is very forgiving for a blade like iron, the long irons are easy to hit, I promise you.

 

The Titleist 755 will look like beat up clubs after 3-4 months of use, the Ping S 58 will still look new after one year of use - go figure........ :)

[klpra]

I'm trying to decide which ones to buy- 4 hcp 90mph ss

 

You should demo and decide? You're the only one who can decide which is better. You can get an opinion here on what they think but thats all they are...opinions.

[vokey design]

This is real easy:

 

S-58 :)

 

Titleist makes OK irons, but if really have to buy Titleist irons then why get a forged stainles steel - if you would like to get a forged iron, then for heavens sake avoid stainless steel. Go get a forged carbon steel iron - like i.e. the 695 series from Titleist, but even better a Miura, Mizuno or other Asian forged brand.

 

If you consider stainlees steel, then go for cast quality - go for Ping S 58.

 

The S 58 is very forgiving for a blade like iron, the long irons are easy to hit, I promise you.

 

The Titleist 755 will look like beat up clubs after 3-4 months of use, the Ping S 58 will still look new after one year of use - go figure........ :)

 

Why do you say to stay away from forged stainless? I play 704's now, have played 690's in the past and I love these irons ... they have been in play for 2 seasons now and still look great too!

 

Not to say that I dont agree with your rec on the pings... I almost got a set of the 59's ... you cant go wrong with a set of ping irons ... just curious about the stainless forged bash.

 

[samm980]

I was really dissappointed with the S58's, I tried them with several different shaft combos but was never able to produce a very consistent ballflight.

 

The 755's didn't wow me but are very good, playable irons with which I had no trouble working either way or controlling trajectory.

[daddydave]

Over the last few weeks i've been after some new clubs, well blades preferably. I can now say that i have finally tried every forged club on the market and was deciding which shaft i should choose when ordering my new mizuno mp-67's. In the shop i saw the new ping s-58 and just couldn't help giving them a waggle. I was very suprised as these didn't half look bad. So i went down to the range and hit a six iron not knowing why as i had already decided i wanted the mp-67's and besides " i only use forged blades " or so i thought. Initially i was suprised how solid and soft the s-58's felt but though nothing of it and went home. The next day at work i couldn't stop thinking about the s-58 i'd tried and as soon as work finished i went back down and hit more shots with it. That confirmed it for me. The ping s-58's are amazing, they've won me over and i never thought i would end up with a set of pings but here i am writing this and looking forward to travelling down to Ping HQ and getting myself some custom fit s-58's. I now know why they were the first club in 11 years that convinced lee westwood to ditch his zing 2's.

[Moneyman]

I'd have to go with the S58s. The 755s are fithy hacker irons.

[samm980]

I'd have to go with the S58s. The 755s are fithy hacker irons.

 

 

I think that assessment of the 755 might be a bit much.

[Moneyman]

I'd have to go with the S58s. The 755s are fithy hacker irons.

 

 

I think that assessment of the 755 might be a bit much.

 

I know, puremoney is my big brother and he is probably getting the 755s and i'm messin with him.

[Tyler Durden]

I'd have to go with the S58s. The 755s are fithy hacker irons.

Hacker irons? That's why Ben Crane, Aaron Oberholser, Steve Stricker, Tom Pernice, Jr., Troy Matteson, Bill Haas, and Jay Haas all have them in play right? But I'm sure their all much bigger hackers than you.

[puremoney]

jtscherm is right

[Viking Golfer]

This is real easy:

 

S-58 :)

 

Titleist makes OK irons, but if really have to buy Titleist irons then why get a forged stainles steel - if you would like to get a forged iron, then for heavens sake avoid stainless steel. Go get a forged carbon steel iron - like i.e. the 695 series from Titleist, but even better a Miura, Mizuno or other Asian forged brand.

 

If you consider stainlees steel, then go for cast quality - go for Ping S 58.

 

The S 58 is very forgiving for a blade like iron, the long irons are easy to hit, I promise you.

 

The Titleist 755 will look like beat up clubs after 3-4 months of use, the Ping S 58 will still look new after one year of use - go figure........ :)

 

Why do you say to stay away from forged stainless? I play 704's now, have played 690's in the past and I love these irons ... they have been in play for 2 seasons now and still look great too!

 

Not to say that I dont agree with your rec on the pings... I almost got a set of the 59's ... you cant go wrong with a set of ping irons ... just curious about the stainless forged bash.

 

 

Hey, your 690.cb are made from forged Carbon 1025 steel and not forged stainles steel.

The 704.cb is made from forged stainless steel - and Mr. Dfung can't really see the reason for making forged irons in this particular material - read on and understand WHY he thinks so...

 

If you read this post from a man called Dfung, who know a lot about forgings and why forged feel softer than cast and why forged stainless steel is somewhat of a contradiction - please read on:

 

The reason forged irons have a reputation for being "soft" is because they're typically made of carbon steel, which is physically softer than stainless steel which is common in cast clubs.

 

Forged clubs are created by shaping a hot (glowing hot, but not liquid) piece of metal in metal dies compressed with a hydraulic press or hydraulic hammer. Most clubheads are made by casting, where liquid metal is poured into sand mold and allowed to cool.

 

The different processes lead to notably different results. Forged products are often much stronger since the metallurgical properties of the original metal blank can be retained since it's not liquified. The negative side of forging is that the dies used to form the clubhead are expensive and more complex shapes are hard to produce, including things like deep cavity heads or undercut channels, so this process is much better suited to player's clubs like a blade or shallow cavityback. Each head you produce via forging causes additional wear on the dies, and many dies are necessary to produce even a single set of clubs.

 

Casting costs a lot less as well as allowing for more complex shapes. To produce a cast head, a mold is made that produces a soft wax copy of the desired clubhead. That wax form is packed in a special fine sand. When you pour the molten metal in, the wax melts and the metal takes the form that the wax had. You still need a mold for each clubhead shape, but since it's only molding wax, a strong mold is not necessary. You can make very complex shapes this way with relatively low hassle. Although you could forge a deep cavity game improvement head like a Big Bertha iron, it would be a technical and financial challenge.

 

In forging, the metal blank you start with can be processed to cause specific grain alignment. As you can imagine, you can't control this in casting since the metal is being poured in a liquid form. Getting a good casting also requires careful control of temperature of the metal and mold, otherwise you may get voids or other irregularities in the cast metal.

 

You can cast carbon steel (most wedges are made this way) or forge stainless steel (Titleist has a number of forged stainless irons). But most cast clubheads are made of harder stainless steel. A stainless head doesn't rust, so it doesn't require chrome plating which saves more dollars. Those expensive forging dies will wear faster with stainless steel blanks, so that's less common as well (and blade-type heads are easier to plate than a complex cavity head where you can't polish the hidden faces easily).

 

When parts are highly stressed like in automotive applications or guns, the higher strength of forged parts will give better performance and longer life. When you're talking about humans swinging golf clubs, it probably doesn't matter nearly as much, and the lower costs of casting make it possible for companies to produce more models. But between the differences in process, materials, and head shapes, it's not surprising that the differences in feel can be very noticeable....

 

Don't know anything definitive on the Titleist heads, but there are many different grades of carbon and stainless steel which have differing hardnesses which might be a factor. Also, the chrome plating on carbon steel heads is very hard and probably more resistant to bag wear and dirt scratching than the unplated stainless heads. When two heads bang into each other in your bag, the chrome plating will probably wear better. There's nothing stopping you from chrome plating stainless steel if you want to, although that sort of defeats the economic purpose of using stainless steel.

 

Chrome plating is an thin, electrically deposited coating of nickel and chromium. You make carbon steel into stainless steel mostly by (surprise) adding nickel and chromium into the metal itself.

 

Since carbon steel is generally of lower hardness than stainless steel, you might expect that they might feel softer. In practice, I think the head design probably has a lot more to do with how you perceive softness than the material.

 

Many of the other posts have cited sound as a factor and I wouldn't disagree, although I think the physical differences can be felt pretty easily in your irons. For me at least, sound is a huge factor in how you perceive the feel of a putter (where you are hyper-sensitive on delicate shots) and on your woods (where you know it must be long if the impact sounds like a nail gun!).

[puremoney]

thanks for the replies

[vokey design]

This is real easy:

 

S-58 :)

 

Titleist makes OK irons, but if really have to buy Titleist irons then why get a forged stainles steel - if you would like to get a forged iron, then for heavens sake avoid stainless steel. Go get a forged carbon steel iron - like i.e. the 695 series from Titleist, but even better a Miura, Mizuno or other Asian forged brand.

 

If you consider stainlees steel, then go for cast quality - go for Ping S 58.

 

The S 58 is very forgiving for a blade like iron, the long irons are easy to hit, I promise you.

 

The Titleist 755 will look like beat up clubs after 3-4 months of use, the Ping S 58 will still look new after one year of use - go figure........ :)

 

Why do you say to stay away from forged stainless? I play 704's now, have played 690's in the past and I love these irons ... they have been in play for 2 seasons now and still look great too!

 

Not to say that I dont agree with your rec on the pings... I almost got a set of the 59's ... you cant go wrong with a set of ping irons ... just curious about the stainless forged bash.

 

 

Hey, your 690.cb are made from forged Carbon 1025 steel and not forged stainles steel.

The 704.cb is made from forged stainless steel - and Mr. Dfung can't really see the reason for making forged irons in this particular material - read on and understand WHY he thinks so...

 

If you read this post from a man called Dfung, who know a lot about forgings and why forged feel softer than cast and why forged stainless steel is somewhat of a contradiction - please read on:

 

QUOTE

The reason forged irons have a reputation for being "soft" is because they're typically made of carbon steel, which is physically softer than stainless steel which is common in cast clubs.

 

Forged products are often much stronger since the metallurgical properties of the original metal blank can be retained since it's not liquified.

 

In forging, the metal blank you start with can be processed to cause specific grain alignment. As you can imagine, you can't control this in casting since the metal is being poured in a liquid form. Getting a good casting also requires careful control of temperature of the metal and mold, otherwise you may get voids or other irregularities in the cast metal.

 

A stainless head doesn't rust, so it doesn't require chrome plating which saves more dollars.

 

Also, the chrome plating on carbon steel heads is very hard and probably more resistant to bag wear and dirt scratching than the unplated stainless heads. When two heads bang into each other in your bag, the chrome plating will probably wear better. There's nothing stopping you from chrome plating stainless steel if you want to, although that sort of defeats the economic purpose of using stainless steel.

 

Since carbon steel is generally of lower hardness than stainless steel, you might expect that they might feel softer. In practice, I think the head design probably has a lot more to do with how you perceive softness than the material.

 

 

I know the 690 are not stainless... I was saying I have played both carbon steel and stainless steel titleist irons ... I have read the quote you gave me and I see nothing but benifits for the consumer to have forged stainless ..

For titleist it is going to cost them more to forge stainless .. but then they dont have to chrome plate it.

no plating to wear off is great for me! True the stainless does not feel as soft as the carbon .. Titleist says they heat treat the stainless to give it the same feel.. but it is not quite the same.

 

These stainless irons are durable and feel great. I love them!

 

Thanks for the response

[Viking Golfer]

This is real easy:

 

S-58 :)

 

Titleist makes OK irons, but if really have to buy Titleist irons then why get a forged stainles steel - if you would like to get a forged iron, then for heavens sake avoid stainless steel. Go get a forged carbon steel iron - like i.e. the 695 series from Titleist, but even better a Miura, Mizuno or other Asian forged brand.

 

If you consider stainlees steel, then go for cast quality - go for Ping S 58.

 

The S 58 is very forgiving for a blade like iron, the long irons are easy to hit, I promise you.

 

The Titleist 755 will look like beat up clubs after 3-4 months of use, the Ping S 58 will still look new after one year of use - go figure........ :)

 

Why do you say to stay away from forged stainless? I play 704's now, have played 690's in the past and I love these irons ... they have been in play for 2 seasons now and still look great too!

 

Not to say that I dont agree with your rec on the pings... I almost got a set of the 59's ... you cant go wrong with a set of ping irons ... just curious about the stainless forged bash.

 

 

Hey, your 690.cb are made from forged Carbon 1025 steel and not forged stainles steel.

The 704.cb is made from forged stainless steel - and Mr. Dfung can't really see the reason for making forged irons in this particular material - read on and understand WHY he thinks so...

 

If you read this post from a man called Dfung, who know a lot about forgings and why forged feel softer than cast and why forged stainless steel is somewhat of a contradiction - please read on:

 

QUOTE

The reason forged irons have a reputation for being "soft" is because they're typically made of carbon steel, which is physically softer than stainless steel which is common in cast clubs.

 

Forged products are often much stronger since the metallurgical properties of the original metal blank can be retained since it's not liquified.

 

In forging, the metal blank you start with can be processed to cause specific grain alignment. As you can imagine, you can't control this in casting since the metal is being poured in a liquid form. Getting a good casting also requires careful control of temperature of the metal and mold, otherwise you may get voids or other irregularities in the cast metal.

 

A stainless head doesn't rust, so it doesn't require chrome plating which saves more dollars.

 

Also, the chrome plating on carbon steel heads is very hard and probably more resistant to bag wear and dirt scratching than the unplated stainless heads. When two heads bang into each other in your bag, the chrome plating will probably wear better. There's nothing stopping you from chrome plating stainless steel if you want to, although that sort of defeats the economic purpose of using stainless steel.

 

Since carbon steel is generally of lower hardness than stainless steel, you might expect that they might feel softer. In practice, I think the head design probably has a lot more to do with how you perceive softness than the material.

 

 

I know the 690 are not stainless... I was saying I have played both carbon steel and stainless steel titleist irons ... I have read the quote you gave me and I see nothing but benifits for the consumer to have forged stainless ..

For titleist it is going to cost them more to forge stainless .. but then they dont have to chrome plate it.

no plating to wear off is great for me! True the stainless does not feel as soft as the carbon .. Titleist says they heat treat the stainless to give it the same feel.. but it is not quite the same.

 

These stainless irons are durable and feel great. I love them!

 

Thanks for the response

 

It's just that the guys I've seen with 704.cb's and 804.cb in their bag, their irons have looked real beat up - but maybe they haven't cared enough about their irons - and then all irons will look beat up sooner or later. Your 704.cb's look great - I just still would prefer a carbon forged iron, if I was to play a forged irons - that's just my point.

 

If not carbon, than cast for me - PING cast :bb:

But the 704.cb seemd to be one heck of an iron - I like the look and design of the 704.cb much better than it's succesor the 755.cb :D

[vokey design]

But the 704.cb seemd to be one heck of an iron - I like the look and design of the 704.cb much better than it's succesor the 755.cb

 

ME TOO! But I still like the look of the 755 ,,, although I wish the sound chip was not red.

 

Back to the point here, I think you will be happy with either iron. If you are hitting them both just as good and they feel great then go with ping... PING's customer service is awesome and worth listing as a pro in this comparison.

 

GOOD LUCK WITH THE NEW STICKS, sorry for the threadjacking

[forged2]

I'd have to go with the S58s. The 755s are fithy hacker irons.

 

What exactly is "fithy"? Nevertheless, thank you and to several others as I won't be coming back to this forum and site. I've come across too many of these kinds of attidudes, that is not worth any of my time. Professionals, which you obviously are not, and are more in line with a 'filthy hacker' don't think or talk this way.

[Milo]

Get a life.

The chap was pulling his brother's leg.

Not very "professional" of you to miss that detail and, just to further salt the wound, you might consider cancelling your English lessons from Borat.

[generalpatton]

I had a set of 755's for awhile last fall and I can attest to how they look so banged up after such a short amount of time. I think I played my irons for 4 or 5 rounds and they looked like they had a season of wear on them. They were nice irons otherwise and were pretty playable. I liked the tri-spec steel shafts.

[apocalypsem3]

I can't talk for 755, but S58 is a solid club. However, if you fight high ball flight/ballooning, you might consider 755 or other clubs. S58 hits very high for blade/cavity design. Maybe 755 hits it lower. Good luck.

[EthansGolf]

i honestly think believe that you cant really compare the two. s58 is far superior. IMHO.

[PingG10guy]

[quote name='djnaz003' timestamp='1305518101' post='3237320']
i honestly think believe that you cant really compare the two. s58 is far superior. IMHO.
[/quote]

We've been waiting 4 years for your input...thanks lmao.

I agree. S58 is far superior

EDIT: you said "think believe". I laughed