Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

The Wedge Guy: A discussion of swingweight (Part 1: History)

Published

on

Image via Golfworks

For the twenty-five plus years, I’ve been in the equipment business, one of the most commonly-asked-about subjects is that of swingweight. It mostly comes up when a golfer is requesting over-length clubs or is contemplating changing to graphite shafts. So, I’m going to direct a discussion of this topic. Please chime in to let me know your thoughts and input.

The concept of swingweight was developed by custom clubmaker Kenneth Smith about 60 years ago. He was trying to figure out how to “match” clubs, and settled on balance point as a way to do so. His swingweight scale had a “hook” to hold the grip end of the club, and a fulcrum 14 inches from the butt. He created an arbitrary scale of measure that consisted of letters A-F, each letter divided into ten segments, i.e. D1, D2, D3, etc. When he measured the clubs of the day, he found most of them to be in the D2 range, so that became recognized as the “standard” for men’s woods and irons.

The golf club industry quickly adopted this method of “matching” clubs…well, because they had no other way! Because the longer the shaft, the heavier the head feels, clubheads increase in weight as the shaft gets shorter, so that the swingweight will stay the same. The theory then, and now, is that if the swingweight is the same, the clubs will feel essentially the same in the golfer’s hands.

But let’s look at what has happened since Kenneth Smith invented the swingweight scale.

  • Shafts have gotten longer by at least an inch. In the 1940s, a “standard” driver was only 42-43” long – now most are 45” if not more.
  • Shafts have gotten much lighter. Those old steel shafts weighed 150 grams or more, compared to modern graphite driver shafts in the 55-75 gram range.
  • Golfers have gotten stronger while clubs have gotten much lighter overall, but swingweights have always adhered to that D2 “standard.”

You must understand two very important factors about swingweight.

First, a “point” of swingweight–such as D2 to D3–is NOT a unit of measure like an ounce or gram. It takes much less weight to shift a driver one point, for example, than it does a wedge, because the shaft length is such an influence on this measure. Generally, the weight of a single dollar bill is a swingweight point on a driver—not much, huh?

And secondly, the overall weight of the club is at least as important as swingweight. Jack Nicklaus was noted for playing a driver in his prime that was 13.25 oz in overall weight–very heavy even for that time (most are about 10.5 oz now!), while his swingweight was only C9, considered very light. S

Swingweight by itself is a rather worthless piece of information!

So, that should get this discussion going. I’ll give you a few days to toss out your questions and comments on this subject, and then I’ll begin to address my own theories on swingweight for YOUR clubs.

Sound off, readers!

Terry Koehler is a fourth generation Texan and a graduate of Texas A&M University. Over his 40-year career in the golf industry, he has created over 100 putter designs, sets of irons and drivers, and in 2014, he put together the team that reintroduced the Ben Hogan brand to the golf equipment industry. Since the early 2000s, Terry has been a prolific writer, sharing his knowledge as “The Wedge Guy”.   But his most compelling work is in the wedge category. Since he first patented his “Koehler Sole” in the early 1990s, he has been challenging “conventional wisdom” reflected in ‘tour design’ wedges. The performance of his wedge designs have stimulated other companies to move slightly more mass toward the top of the blade in their wedges, but none approach the dramatic design of his Edison Forged wedges, which have been robotically proven to significantly raise the bar for wedge performance. Terry serves as Chairman and Director of Innovation for Edison Golf – check it out at www.EdisonWedges.com.

14 Comments

14 Comments

  1. Stuart

    Oct 29, 2023 at 5:24 am

    Based on what I’ve read – Kenneth Smith did not design the swing weight scale. The scale was originally designed by R.W. Adams, who got the patent in 1934. As I understand it, Kennith Smith bought the rights to use Adam’s invention in 1945 and started producing them with both 14″ and 12″ fulcrum points.

    Also, they certainly did have ways to match the clubs before the scale – but the calculations were tedious. Adam’s wanted to find an easier way.

  2. Bob Pegram

    Jul 13, 2020 at 5:00 am

    The reason Nicklaus’ clubs were heavy, but with a light swing weight is that they were backweighted which simultaneously makes the clubs heavier, but reduces the swing weight.
    My clubs are MOI weighted. The irons are 1-1/2 inches overlength and have graphite X shafts to keep the swing weight down. Also, 2 inches longer length is a whole flex difference. In other words they flex only a little stiffer than S flex. The cheating way to do MOI matching is to make each higher numbered club 0.65 swing weight higher for each 1/2 inch shorter it is (or 1.3 swing weights heaver per 1 inch shorter). They are easier to hit consistently with MOI weighting.

    • Bob Pegram

      Jul 13, 2020 at 5:04 am

      Forgot to mention: All of my wedges (PW, 54, 60) are the same length (37 inches), but each one gets heaver by approximately 0.65 swing weight. The Lob is a little heavier than that. All have the same graphite shafts as the other irons.

  3. Grey

    Jul 10, 2020 at 1:01 am

    I’ve just received my custom built wedges. TM MG2 52, 56, 60 all .5” over standard. The swing weights are coming in at D10, E0, E1. I notice pretty small changes in the feel of equipment. I feel like I’m swinging a garden hoe. Shafts are Nippon Modus 120 S. Is there something about the balance or kickpoint making the swingweight so high? I’ve always thought .5” adds 3 SW points.

    • joro

      Jul 10, 2020 at 11:56 am

      The sad part is that the big club companies do not care. They take a head and shaft and put it together with a grip and call it a custom. I bought a couple of Vokey Wedges and specified what I wanted. The Two Wedges came and they were two different models and not even close to what I had ordered. I had to rebuild them myself to get them right.

  4. BD

    Jul 8, 2020 at 3:30 pm

    I laugh when people are so concerned about swingweight. I can make a telephone pole D2 if I wanted to.

  5. Regardt van Rooyen

    Jul 8, 2020 at 2:28 pm

    100% agree with William Terry. My clubs have been MOI’d for over 10 years now. It’s all about feel weight and not swing weight. Like you’ve explained, you can have a VERY heavy golf club but have a light swingweight.

    A simple way to MOI your irons without a Swing Weight machine is to build your 7i light and go through a specific swing weight test. Keep adding weight until you find your desired feel. Measure that 7i, let’s say it comes out at D2 then follow the next clubs up and down with a half a swing weight, for example:

    3i – D0
    4i – D0.5
    5i – D1
    6i – D1.5
    7i – D2
    8i – D2.5
    9i – D3
    PW – D3.5

    This will get you VERY close to the same MOI (feel kr how much force it takes to move your club) in your irons

    • Regardt van Rooyen

      Jul 8, 2020 at 2:31 pm

      Correction, “to MOI your irons without a MOI Machine”

  6. William Terry

    Jul 8, 2020 at 12:02 pm

    Do you think people would be better off matching MOI instead of swing weight?

    • Hurley

      Jul 8, 2020 at 4:59 pm

      Yes – to a degree – but the important thing is to get a baseline. And that takes trial and error to find that starting point. I’ve noticed for me and many others, there’s definitely a small range where things feel good. Way above or below this, and it’s no good. So you have to MOI a test club then break out the lead tape and get to work.

      Other thing to note is MOI matching really shouldn’t be for an entire bag – same as SW. You should generally break it down to woods, irons, and wedges – and most will prefer woods and wedges higher than irons. Also, here’s another consideration, courtesy of @howard_jones – even though SW isn’t a unit of measure, it can still come in handy. Let’s say there’s a test club built – a 9i – and we get an MOI measurement. Now we take that same 9i and take the SW value on it. Now you have baseline SW and MOI. Think of these as the two “extremes” and the rest of the set may fall somewhere in between. If you SW match a 4i, the MOI will be very different than the MOI matched value. The individual can hit both and see how they each feel, or do the same thing as the test club – break out the lead tape and build it up until it feels right. At the end, you’ll find some people may perform better with MOI match (progressive SW), some with SW match (progressive MOI), and some will fall somewhere in between. It’s crucial to get the measurements of a short and long test club and then draw the slope to find out where the rest of them may fall.

      The advantage of MOI over SW is 1) it’s a measurement and 2) it’s transferable across clubs. SW is not – it’s only valid when the components are all the same (heads, shafts, ferrules, grips, etc). So if you get a new set of irons, you CAN say, “my MOI is 2800” and have them built to that and unless head or shaft weights are WAY different, they’ll feel the same. What you CAN’T do is say “I want them at D3” and expect them to be the same. For this reason alone, MOI is way more valuable.

      All in all, in club building there is no shortcut. I think length and total weight are most important. It’s a combination of art and science to get it right.

      • drkviol801

        Jul 9, 2020 at 8:10 am

        You guys have no idea what you’re talking about. If you don’t play for a living your opinion is meaningless.

        • 51TJesx

          Jul 9, 2020 at 1:50 pm

          Dumbest comment on here in awhile. Newsflash – pros get paid to play and don’t work on their clubs. That’s why they have tour vans and those guys are paid to build clubs, not paid to play.

          Go try to refute a single thing that was stated – you can’t.

          You likely don’t get paid much for anything.

        • joro

          Jul 10, 2020 at 10:45 am

          Let me tell you that the “ones that play for a living” aren’t that aware, and that is why they have a club maker in the Tour Dept. to do it for them. I made a lot of clubs for Tour Pros and most had no clue, it mot have felt right but they did not know how to correct. Leave it to the pro club makers who know what to do.

          Like one poster said, yoo can lighten a telephone pole to the B range or make a Graphite shaft into the F range by where you put the weight, that is simple and also applies to the completed club… There is a danger to all that though, one is length if you cut or extend the shaft, and the other can by overall weight. So I say, if there is a problem look up a competent club maker and not a person who plays for a living. They know their specs and so does the guy that makes their clubs.

      • Ted Noel

        Jul 11, 2020 at 5:11 pm

        I agree that MOI is a great improvement over SW. I build clubs (hobbyist) and if I MOI match clubs, they will work well as a set. Note that MOI integrates weight distribution, elements of flex, and more. It’s a dynamic measurement that approximates how clubs feel in the hand.

        Of key importance, MOI measured from the butt cap is not what you feel MOI measured from 3 1/2- 4 1/2 inches down from the butt cap is much better, and if done properly, works from Drivers through wedges. Unfortunately, the only available MOI machine is set up to measure from the butt cap only, so masking tape kluges come into play.

        Perfect MOI matching is one reason that equal length irons play better for many people. (A single swing is the other, but that’s a different discussion.)

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

Published

on

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!

Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.

Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.

One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?

Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.

Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.

Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”

For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…

Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…

That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.

Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.

@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic

Continue Reading

Podcasts

Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Published

on

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Published

on

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by BBC SPORT (@bbcsport)

“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”

Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.

That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.

As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.

I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.

One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.

The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.

If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.

Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.

As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.

It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.

David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.

In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:

“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”

Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”

Eventually, though, something shifts.

We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.

Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.

Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.

Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.

So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.

I see someone evolving.

He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.

It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending