They have a set still in stock that are similar in design. The KE4 Forged. It’s a nice head. If you look at the wide range of heads available today and how many different designs there are you quickly realize there is more than one way to skin a cat. The newest design of forged irons Maltby has the TS1 and 2 are as good of an iron as I have ever hit and they are a completely different design look. I think a lot of it comes down to what suits your eye. But I dont think that the mass directly behind the ball is any sort of revelation in iron designs these days.
To answer your question quite simply, yes. The golf ball doesn’t know the level of player that hit it. It knows an object with certain mass and dimensional properties hit it. Depending on the mass and dimensional characteristics of the mass (clubhead) and where the ball was struck, the ball will perform accordingly. If a tour pro hits it 1/4″-1/2″ off center, and the cg is actually 1/4″ to the heel side of center, then he/she could loose 5+% distance, as an example. I go back to the days when I played and Ping came out with the Eye 2 irons. All of us were playing blades of some kind, Wilson Staff, Hogan, MacGregor, Power Bilt. Once we hit the Ping long irons, just about every player started putting the Ping long irons in their bag. Why? Because they were a much more stable head, more forgiving and easier long irons to hit. Their “playability” was much higher than what we had. I do wonder sometimes when I see top players playing models I know have a lower MPF if they know what it costs them when they do on occasion mis-hit a shot. I don’t think they do.
Britt Lindsey
No the SHIM15 will not work for shimming a .335″ parallel tip shaft into a .355″ tapered hosel bore. With a .355″ tapered hosel bore the bore is .355″ at the very bottom and tapers out to approximately .370″ at the top of the hosel bore. At the top of the hosel bore the the .335″ parallel tip shaft with the SHIM15 will measure .350″ but the hosel bore size is .370″. We do not have a shim that will work with this installation.
If you are referring to the 2017 Ping I blade vs the TS-1, I would defer to the playability rating comparison. The i blade is 430 points placing it in the Conventional category and the TS-1 is 711 points placing it in the Super Game Improvement category. I don’t know how much you are familiar with the MPF ratings, but those numbers tell us the TS-1 is a more stable and more forgiving iron. I do not have the blade length on the Ping i blade, but the c-dimension is 1.260″ on the Ping and 1.438″ on the TS-1. This is the dimension from the hosel centerline to where the cg is located. The longer the c-dimension the higher the playability, generally. If you hit the ball really consistently and do not need the stability and forgiveness a higher playability club offers, the Ping can perform well. However, on even the slightest mishits, the performance of a design with a higher MPF rating will provide better performance. Generally larger head designs can have a higher playability, but it totally depends on the mass and dimensional characteristics of the design, not just the size. I have seen many larger midsize and larger designs not have high playability because the cg is not where it should be. I have also seen midsize and more traditional designs have a higher playability because the cg / mass and dimensional characteristics are designed well. That is why we have the MPF system for comparing irons. You can not just go by size or features. You have to go by the measurements (vertical cg, horizontal cg, rearward cg, MOI). Hope this helps.
Britt Lindsey
Have not had a chance to measure the Mizuno 919 irons. I have Tour, the Forged and the Hot Metal models, but have not had time to measure. This is our busiest time of the year getting the catalog and website ready for 2019, so it will most likely be after the first of the year before I can get those done. Thanks for your interest, and patience.
Britt Lindsey
If adding a tip weight is getting you into a normal swingweight range for the shaft flex you are using you would not do additional tip trimming and the shaft would play to it’s listed flex. If not adding the weight left you with a swingweight that is lighter than normal for the shaft flex you are using the shaft would play stiffer. If adding the weight took you to a swingweight that is heavier than a normal range for the shaft flex you are using than you would need to do additional tip trimming to maintain the flex of the shaft. On average we reference a D1 swingweight for R flexes and D2 for stiff flexes. These would be the normal that I refer to.
Graphite shaft manufactures will design and test their shafts with normal swingweight ranges.
Are you building to a certain swingweight for a customer or for your own preference? I have been building clubs for a long time and I have rarely seen any player that can discern between one swingweight to the next. Today’s lightweight shafts take very little time to get used to and I truly believe people are far too hung up on a set swingweight. Is there a particular swingweight number you feel that you must achieve?
Sorry I didnt answer your question but I really want to know why you would want to add that much weight to a tip?
I looked in our database and we only go back to 1996 on the Hogan, so I don’t have the detail on what exactly those shafts were. In 1996 they used a 75 gram UST product as their Apex Graphite. Not sure if it is the same or not. Without knowing specifications, it is difficult to offer a modern alternative. I have always said that if you have a shaft, no matter how old, that you hit well, keep hitting it. That being said, having been in this industry for 35 years and been closely involved with shaft companies, shaft development and shaft testing over the years, today’s graphite materials, manufacturing processes and tolerances are better than 22 years ago. This does not mean you can’t play the Hogan graphite shafts from 1996, but if you do try something else, they should be more consistent and stable from shaft to shaft. The Recoil product from UST is a great product, as is the AeroTech SteelFiber. The Mitsubishi Kuro Kage Black 2nd Gen and the Paderson TS-I Series are other good choices. May take a little testing to find the right one if you decide to try a new shaft.
Hope this helps.
Britt Lindsey
The playability of the head does not change at all, unless you add a bunch of weight to it. Even then, mass and dimensional characteristics will not change much. Fairway woods, by the nature of their design, have high playability. The challenge when cutting down a club as much as you indicate is maintaining the feel of the club and to some extent the shaft dynamic. When you cut the shaft down from the butt end, you are cutting the largest diameter of the shaft, the strongest part of the shaft, so the shaft may play or feel a little weaker, especially if you add weight back into the head someway to try and maintain some head feel. Obviously if you cut it down and do nothing to the head weight, the swing weight (and thus the head feel) will be lighter. Whether any of this matters is totally up to the person hitting it and how it performs for them at the shortened length. If this is for a junior, for example, it is much more important for their development that the length of the club fit them than what the swing weight is. This is not only true for juniors, but any developing player. Again, if the person does not notice a loss of head feel, then it’s not an issue. Hit it an evaluate if any head weight adjustments need to be made.
Britt Lindsey