Ping i500 vs i210 irons - 2019 Most Wanted data

[11iron]

I am a fan of the great data MGS provides, and dive into it often as a means of narrowing down fitting options.  I am considering a new set of players irons, have always played (and loved) Ping irons, so am looking at i210 and i500.  The selling point of the i500s is higher speed, longer distance, and higher trajectory, whereas the i210s are touted for feel, consistency, and precision.  But, the 2019 MGS Most Wanted data has higher ball speed, longer carry and total distance, and higher apex for the i210 vs the i500 across every tested club:  5I, 7I, and PW.  Any considered thoughts on this would be appreciated.  

[cnosil]

It is hard to compare across categories as the group of testers will most likely be different.  You seem to be in Ping mode so you should be able to go to a single location and see how the numbers play out for you.   I personally struggled more with the players irons vs the players distance and unless my swing was on the day I tested,  my distances were generally shorter.    

[golfertrb]

My experience has been that these irons are very player specific. My recommendation is to hit them both outside so you can see and feel the difference. I play the i500 and don't have issues with consistentency but many of the testers did last year. I also don't get the massive distance numbers that many do - it's just so dependant on your delivery, tempo, etc. Hope that helps and if I can answer any specific questions don't hesitate to ask.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[11iron]

Thanks for your replies, cnosil and golfertrb.  I will of course hit the clubs myself, for now I am still in info-gathering mode (although I may wait for the next iterations of these clubs in January).  I think you are correct cnosil, without any alternate explanations, that the discrepancy is attributable to different testers, although I would have hoped that testers would be selected so as clubs we know to hit longer, higher, and faster would actually hit longer, higher, and faster, not only within tests but between tests conducted at the same time by the same site under the same guidelines for the same purpose.  None of the MGS tests can claim statistical significance, but I guess I hoped that there was an explanation that would still support broader practical significance.  Some nuggets of useful info nonetheless.