Now in saying I am not all that happy, I say that from a relative perspective. I was able to get them bent to fix the lie angle issue, but the non-conforming issue was always on my mind, so I upgraded.Īll that being said, I am not all that happy with the G irons I bought, but once you sink that sort of money into them (unless money is no object) you are kind of set with them for another decade or so. The only reason I retired the i3+ irons was (well, 2 reasons) that they were non-conforming for tournaments, and I took a long break from the game, and during that time, my swing path had changed, which was causing my blue dot i3+ irons to hook dramatically. I retired them in 2003'ish and bought a set of Ping i3+ irons, which I just retired last year and upgraded to the Ping G irons. I have a set of PE2's sitting in my bedroom. I am convinced that without a ball flight analysis, between my PE2's and replacement candidates, it is a waste of time. Have changes in iron design/technology been significant - like that of drivers? Then I read quite a few comments from folks who moved from PE2's (and other older gen clubs) only to either come back to them or see minimal, if any, improvement. It's not that I don't hit my irons well (I do), but more the thought that new technology might make further improvement. Having only recently upgraded from my GBB driver and seeing positive results, it now has my curiosity as to whether a change in irons would improve my game. That fitting, likewise, did not evaluate ball flight data - just on the range. I had been wondering about this for some time. Interestingly enough, the fitter said my green dots with the regular zz-lite shafts, are still correct today. This past winter in Yuma, I attended a Ping Demo and was fitted for the G400's. I say "fitted" as back then it was simply measurement and watching some shots into the net. I was "fitted" for my PE2's which I purchased in 1988 and have played with Tend to play a soft fade and hit my irons very close to most distance charts for a 98 mph swing speed. Best formal handicap was 11 and now about 14. In a nutshell, I find the measurements he provides very useful to help me narrow down my choices but the rating is not something to rely on IMO.If you are a former PE2 player, what irons did you switch to, why, and how did the change work out? I've been sitting on the fence about changing my irons and need some MySpyGolf Agents intervention.ĥ7 years old and been playing the game since about age 7. which is where a lot of modern tech lives now. It also does not take into consideration other features that have a significant impact, like face design, sole design/interaction, etc. Basically, his overall rating severely punishes any design as the HCOG moves toward the heel, and even more severely punishes a higher VCOG. The MOI numbers are interesting, I would expect a higher number to be more forgiving but I don't know how much of a difference that makes unless the numbers are really far apart. I also know that my game likes a lower VCOG, less than. For example, from experience I know that I play my best golf with irons that have a HCOG (C dimension) of the mid 1.3 to 1.5 range as I am not a heel-side striker. It gives me an initial basis of comparison between designs, especially when I can compare them to ones I've played before. I like to refer to his ratings because of the raw data measurements. The only way the rating is useful is if you know that the playing characteristics RM emphasizes are the ones that are best for your game. Lots of people think the MPF data is useless, and I would pretty much agree with the rating part.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |