Ping Eye 2 vs The Future

[tsped83]

For all those geeks like me who love this kind of thing, check out Fried Eggs golf video comparison of the fabled Eye 2 iron vs Ping G, iBlade and i200.

https://youtu.be/5ZIcbfMzNUg

Worth a watch and his channel is very funny.

 

[VVega]

Fantastic! Just shows get fitted for the right irons for you and you can play them as long as the wear and tear allows

 

[Crow]

Very interesting.

Probably two factors at work here;

1 - Technology hasn't given us a huge gain where irons are concerned.
2 - The Ping Eye 2 was a revolutionary club, way ahead of its time.

 

[Qwerty]

Very interesting stuff, thanks for posting :thup:

 

[Alex1975]

Ouch, sorry but that's a horror show. He says "I have to do my best to remove all the variables" then does absolutely nothing to do so. Massively different lofts and shaft weights. He then says he expected the box grooves would add more spin, but grooves don't help spin. Shocking content making people believe it's a credible test or he an informed YouTuber.

Ping Eye 2 performed well though.

 

[tsped83]

Ouch, sorry but that's a horror show. He says "I have to do my best to remove all the variables" then does absolutely nothing to do so. Massively different lofts and shaft weights. He then says he expected the box grooves would add more spin, but grooves don't help spin. Shocking content making people believe it's a credible test or he an informed YouTuber.

Ping Eye 2 performed well though.

Why is it not a credible test? Shocking content, hardly.

 

[HankMarvin]

Ping are for old blokes.

 

[Imurg]

Interesting results but I'm always vary of these kind of tests..
The Eye2 matches up favourably with the others at "Pro"swing speeds - would it be the same at "normal" speeds..?
I don't know....
Also, a lot of the new tech is focused on increasing the ball speed on the off centre hits...
Would be interesting to see a comparison, probably it would need to be done on a robot tester, on toe and heel strikes between them.
That's where I think larger differences would appear.

 

[Tashyboy]

Interesting results but I'm always vary of these kind of tests..
The Eye2 matches up favourably with the others at "Pro"swing speeds - would it be the same at "normal" speeds..?
I don't know....
Also, a lot of the new tech is focused on increasing the ball speed on the off centre hits...
Would be interesting to see a comparison, probably it would need to be done on a robot tester, on toe and heel strikes between them.
That's where I think larger differences would appear.

you don't need a robot for heel and toe strikes, that's me most days.

 

[Capella]

Interesting results but I'm always vary of these kind of tests..
The Eye2 matches up favourably with the others at "Pro"swing speeds - would it be the same at "normal" speeds..?
I don't know....
Also, a lot of the new tech is focused on increasing the ball speed on the off centre hits...
Would be interesting to see a comparison, probably it would need to be done on a robot tester, on toe and heel strikes between them.
That's where I think larger differences would appear.

Randy is not a pro. He just happens to work in a golf shop. He hits it pretty far for such a small guy, though I think he said in one of his vids that he is playing off -4 or -5.

 

[VVega]

but grooves don't help spin.

Really? Thought the general consensus was they do? See e.g. http://www.andrewricegolf.com/andrew-rice-golf/2014/5/to-go-milled-or-not-milled

 

[tsped83]

Interesting results but I'm always vary of these kind of tests..
The Eye2 matches up favourably with the others at "Pro"swing speeds - would it be the same at "normal" speeds..?
I don't know....
Also, a lot of the new tech is focused on increasing the ball speed on the off centre hits...
Would be interesting to see a comparison, probably it would need to be done on a robot tester, on toe and heel strikes between them.
That's where I think larger differences would appear.

He does show some stats whereby the dispersion on good/bad shots is markedly
different from Eye 2 to G

 

[Alex1975]

Really? Thought the general consensus was they do? See e.g. http://www.andrewricegolf.com/andrew-rice-golf/2014/5/to-go-milled-or-not-milled

Thats about milling. Grooves are just gutters for debris to be moved into.

 

[Craigg]

I don't think the ZZ lite was the stock shaft in the eye 2's either. I thought it was the JZ, which was a dreadful shaft in comparison to the ZZ. I stand to be corrected though.

 

[VVega]

Thats about milling. Grooves are just gutters for debris to be moved into.

Hmm, from the link/test I posted above:

As you can see this clubface with both grooves and surface roughness generated the highest spin rates of all three clubs. This leads me to believe that grooves play a larger, more important role on cleanly struck shots than I originally thought.

 

[VVega]

Hmm, from the link/test I posted above:

And the club without any grooves or milling generated more spin than the one with milling only.

 

[snell]

Good video from a great youtuber.

Think it proves how far tech has came in regards to off centre strikes.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Enjoyed that and all rather interesting

 

[Craigg]

Hope this video goes viral. I can get mine up for sale then. :thup: