04 Dec 2005 05:08:31
Don A Roof
Ping square grooves

Does anyone have a website (Ping's own does not help much) where I could
find out which models of the Ping Eye2 irons were square groove and
which were not?

I can recognize some by the patent numbers. Others such as Patent
Pending may or may not be and I would like to know if there is a source
anyone knows of that chronicles this info.

The quality of these irons has stood up over the years and it fascinates
me how well.

I would hazard a guess that they are the most copied iron head every
made. If you look at the generics that are still around they truly look
like junk when you put them beside the original.


I've probably handled or owned hundreds of these clubs over the years
and I see wear in the grooves and the sole from time to time but I never
see a breakdown or corrosion of the steel.

Just a guess: Although these irons still hold their used club value, I
would think that the only thing holding them back from still being
widely used is their weaker lofts. I find them to be a club to a club
and a half weaker than most new clubs.

The wedges continue to be popular I think in large part due to the
square grooves This brings me back to my question and hope that
somebody has info as to which of these models are and are not square
grooves.



04 Dec 2005 05:33:24
Re: Ping square grooves

all the eye2 + are after the law suit. find a set of eye 2 with out the
plus "+" and you should be all set.



04 Dec 2005 10:04:06
Birdie Bill
Re: Ping square grooves


Don A Roof wrote:
> The wedges continue to be popular I think in large part due to the
> square grooves This brings me back to my question and hope that
> somebody has info as to which of these models are and are not square
> grooves.

They are all "square" grooves, just like most other modern clubs
that followed them. I'm not sure if you can even buy an iron these
days
with the old V grooves.

The lawsuit was over the spacing of the grooves. Ping assumed that
the measument was to be made from a certain point, while the USGA
(with perhaps some prodding by other manufacturers) claimed that
the measurements were to be made from a different point, and
ruled that the Ping grooves were too closely spaced.

So Ping made the minor adjustment. It really is a very minor
difference,
I seriously doubt you coud see any performance difference based on
that small difference in spacing, but good luck.



04 Dec 2005 12:14:25
Firstname MI Lastname
Re: Ping square grooves

"Birdie Bill" <bighorn_bill@hotmail.com > writes:

> Don A Roof wrote:
> > The wedges continue to be popular I think in large part due to the
> > square grooves This brings me back to my question and hope that
> > somebody has info as to which of these models are and are not square
> > grooves.
>
> They are all "square" grooves, just like most other modern clubs
> that followed them. I'm not sure if you can even buy an iron these
> days
> with the old V grooves.
>
> The lawsuit was over the spacing of the grooves. Ping assumed that
> the measument was to be made from a certain point, while the USGA
> (with perhaps some prodding by other manufacturers) claimed that
> the measurements were to be made from a different point, and
> ruled that the Ping grooves were too closely spaced.
>
> So Ping made the minor adjustment. It really is a very minor
> difference,
> I seriously doubt you coud see any performance difference based on
> that small difference in spacing, but good luck.

The OP might be interested in the diagrams in Appendix II
which relate to this matter.

http://www.ruleshistory.com/appendices.html
http://www.ruleshistory.com/images/fig1984.gif
http://www.ruleshistory.com/images/club09.gif

Also, Decision US/4-1/100 mentions the
'grand-fathering' of the older clubs.

--

-- Firstname MI Lastname


05 Dec 2005 00:03:02
R&B
Re: Ping square grooves

<almostagolfer@gmail.com > wrote ...
> all the eye2 + are after the law suit. find a set of eye 2 with out the
> plus "+" and you should be all set.


Not quite true.

The early Eye-2 irons had V grooves. The so-called "illegal" square grooves
were introduced a year or two later, still under the branding of "Eye 2."
They're fairly easy to identify with the naked eye, because the grooves
themselves look so big and wide. Indeed, the grooves themselves weren't
changed in the modified "legal" versions. It's the bevel at the top that
was changed. (If you'll recall, PIng argued that the proper way to measure
the distance between grooves was to measure from the wall of one groove to
the wall of the next. The USGA said no, and said that the groove begins
where the bevel begins on the face of the iron. So with the big bevels on
these early Eye 2 "square groove" irons, the bevels themselves were too
close together, making the clubs illegal (grandfathered in during the court
settlement).

As I recall, as all this court mayhem was happening, Ping actually
introduced a version of these irons with the same square grooves, but
without the big bevel. These irons tore up golf balls like a paper
shredder.

I forget for sure which way it worked, but unless I'm mistaken, the early
"v-groove" Eye-2 irons had the "Eye-2" engraving on the cavity back upside
down when the club was soled, while it was turned right-side-up in the
square groove version. Or the other way around.

Then there were two incarnations of Eye-2 +. The first was the modification
to bring the grooves back into conformity. Then, Ping came with a somewhat
different version of the Eye 2 + which had nothing to do with a change in
the grooves, but rather made a change to the sole of the irons. It's that
first version of the Eye2+ (before the change was made to the sole) that
bring a pretty penny today among collectors. And the early v-groove Eye2s.
Those are collectors items, too. And arguably the best irons they ever
made.

I only remember this stuff because I owned a set of every incarnation of the
Eye 2s, and later worked with a Ping rep who recounted the whole thing to
me, which more or less jibed with my memory of the clubs themselves.

Randy




09 Dec 2005 15:36:57
Annika1980
Re: Ping square grooves

>I only remember this stuff because I owned a set of every incarnation of the
>Eye 2s, and later worked with a Ping rep who recounted the whole thing to
>me, which more or less jibed with my memory of the clubs themselves.

Ah, then you should be able to ace "Annika's Official Ping Quiz."
It's a 3-parter.

1. How many men's professional Majors have been won using Ping irons?
A. 3
B. 12
C. 25
D. 38

2. Name them.
A. 1986 PGA (Tway)
B. 1989 Open Championship (Calcavecchia)
C. 1991 PGA (Daly)
D. All of the above.

3. Why have so few Majors been won using Pings?
A. Ping sucks.
B. Ping sucks.
C. Ping sucks.
D. All of the above.



10 Dec 2005 03:38:59
bill-o
Re: Ping square grooves


On 9-Dec-2005, "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

> Ah, then you should be able to ace "Annika's Official Ping Quiz

You forgot a question on the "aesthetics" of PING (yeah right)

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.


09 Dec 2005 22:06:44
Birdie Bill
Re: Ping square grooves


bill-o wrote:
> On 9-Dec-2005, "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah, then you should be able to ace "Annika's Official Ping Quiz
>
> You forgot a question on the "aesthetics" of PING (yeah right)
>

I was on a trip a while back. Didn't have my clubs along, but
felt the urge to hit some balls. So I stop off at a driving range
and ask them if they had a 5 iron I could borrow. They gave
me a Ping Zing. You know, the REALLY ugly Pings.

I had one of the best ball-skriking sessions I've ever had. I
guess that says something about my game, unfortunately.
I guess I'll never win a major.



10 Dec 2005 17:50:47
R&B
Re: Ping square grooves

Depends on how you count it.

For many years, a lot of players carried one of two types of wedges --
either they had a Cleveland wedge in their bag or a Ping wedge in their bag,
or both.

And who knows how many majors have been won with Ping putters. Lots.

I never asserted anything about the quality of Ping irons. Only that I
owned them and was sort of interested in their history.

As you know, I don't play Ping equipment anymore.

Randy


"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1134171417.313245.59140@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >I only remember this stuff because I owned a set of every incarnation of
> >the
>>Eye 2s, and later worked with a Ping rep who recounted the whole thing to
>>me, which more or less jibed with my memory of the clubs themselves.
>
> Ah, then you should be able to ace "Annika's Official Ping Quiz."
> It's a 3-parter.
>
> 1. How many men's professional Majors have been won using Ping irons?
> A. 3
> B. 12
> C. 25
> D. 38
>
> 2. Name them.
> A. 1986 PGA (Tway)
> B. 1989 Open Championship (Calcavecchia)
> C. 1991 PGA (Daly)
> D. All of the above.
>
> 3. Why have so few Majors been won using Pings?
> A. Ping sucks.
> B. Ping sucks.
> C. Ping sucks.
> D. All of the above.
>




14 Dec 2005 12:25:17
Annika1980
Re: Ping square grooves

>I never asserted anything about the quality of Ping irons. Only that I
>owned them and was sort of interested in their history.

>As you know, I don't play Ping equipment anymore.

It's been so long since we've played together, I've forgotten.
Are you a Callaway guy now?

Hell, I don't even remember what kind of irons I play.
Got a Canon camera, though.



14 Dec 2005 12:44:16
Annika1980
Re: Ping square grooves

>It's been so long since we've played together, I've forgotten.
>Are you a Callaway guy now?

Yeah, that was it.
http://www.pbase.com/annika1980/image/3168580



14 Dec 2005 21:23:09
Dene
Re: Ping square grooves


"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1134593055.950636.279460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >It's been so long since we've played together, I've forgotten.
> >Are you a Callaway guy now?
>
> Yeah, that was it.
> http://www.pbase.com/annika1980/image/3168580

Randy,

Your ears ever get cold??

-Greg