Opinion & Analysis
The Wedge Guy: Maybe it’s time to rethink your short irons

In today’s post, I’m going to put on my “respectful irreverence” hat and challenge the notion of “matched” sets of irons that have been promoted to us since Bobby Jones and Spalding created the concept in the early 1920s. My question is simple: Should iron sets really be “matched”?
I’m going out on a limb and say “NO.”
Here’s why.
When cavity-back, perimeter-weighted irons became popular in the 1970s, long and middle irons immediately became easier to hit. But manufacturers followed industry tradition and continued to make all the irons look alike–3 through PW. Because the short irons had the same cavity as the long and middle irons, the result was excessively high ball flight and reduced spin. That’s when the absurd notion of strengthening lofts began.
Over my many years in the equipment industry, I’ve seen Iron Byron prove time and again that perimeter weighting is increasingly less influential as the loft of an iron increases. In fact, while a low center of gravity and thin face is certainly helpful with a middle or long iron in your hands, most golfers seem to have the exact opposite problem as irons approach the high 30s and 40s in loft – they hit them too high and cannot control their distances.
Most golfers will be surprised by the shotmaking performance of blade short irons, even if you play to a double-digit handicap. The reason is that the more even distribution of mass across the back of the clubhead on a blade short iron of 40 degrees or more greatly equalizes the smash factor – or efficiency of impact – vertically up and down the face. And the simple fact is that most golfers miss their short irons vertically, while long-club misses tend to run heel to toe.
What’s really always baffled me is that the design of almost all wedges exacerbates this issue for golfers, because all the mass is so low in the clubhead. Iron Byron repeatedly proves that misses even a half-inch up the face can reduce smash factor by as much as 20-22 percent on any top-brand wedges. That’s why your high-face misses come up short.
But back to the short iron—here’s what might become an eye-opening experiment for you. Talk to your club fitter or pro about trying out a set of blade demos–just the short irons–for a round or two. Choose some that have a shaft that is reasonably matched to your current irons. Hit some shots side-by-side with your short irons and the blade short irons and see if you don’t notice a measurable trajectory improvement.
Yes, you’ll notice some feel difference when you miss out toward the toe, but my bet is that you will find much more consistent distance control and accuracy.
But remember, the numbers on the bottom of irons have become essentially meaningless. That blade 9-iron might have the same loft as your “tech” pitching wedge. So keep that in mind as you do this evaluation.
Let me know how your experiments play out.
Opinion & Analysis
The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

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
Podcasts
Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

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!
Opinion & Analysis
On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

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
“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.
matt
Feb 5, 2021 at 8:21 am
good read, just found it. there’s another factor making these clubs even harder to control. Since the advent of the ProV1 the cover of a premium ball has been getting harder and harder. They manage to keep spin reasonable with other tech but launch wants to go higher and higher (driver distance is obviously the force here). The wedge makers are on to this, they’re all driving CG higher and higher because these balls want to launch so dang high. But if your pitching wedge/ 9 iron doesn’t have an adequately high CG you’re almost surely going to see some control issues with it IMO.
Osnola Kinnard
Sep 8, 2020 at 8:58 am
What you espouse is what Edel Golf does with their SLS01 irons amd they also tske it a step further with different shaft profiles in the long, mid, short iron/wedges.
Speedy
Aug 11, 2020 at 12:20 pm
Thought Dave Pelz was The Wedge Guy. Retired (80)?
geohogan
Aug 2, 2020 at 3:14 pm
IMO increased offset in cavity backed irons creates inconsistency as much as perimeter weighting.
Bend your cavity back irons to have much less offset; consistency and accuracy will increase.
Note: bending less offset will increase effective loft. ie closer to loft of comparable muscle back irons.
Bladehunter.
Jul 25, 2020 at 3:17 pm
And some of us have been telling you this forever. For all handicaps. Blades in the short irons. Hybrids up top. Done.
Par
Jul 25, 2020 at 6:53 am
I am a mid handicapper, about 12 and in my late 60’s. I fiddle around with hitting various irons. Do see better accuracy and distance with forged or pro series cast iron. Yet over much better consistency and comfort with matched clubs and cast set.
Tokyo Bob
Jul 24, 2020 at 12:54 pm
I happened onto this just by chance/trial and error, The end result was I carry two 9 irons and two 8 irons, with 8-PW being Miura blades and the other 6-9 being PRGR GI irons , which are essentially 4-7 lofts. Numbers on the bottom just are meaningful in a general sense or reference in a single set. I like the Hogan clubs just printing the loft, not the number on the club. Useful.
People may hate on this. But it works for me. MiHLM, mid handicap lives matter, too.
Liked the article and learned some things on the vertical miss on wedges, etc.
Shallowface
Jul 23, 2020 at 7:55 pm
Terry, your comment about how toe hits might feel with a blade is interesting. For a long time I’ve been of the opinion that what people interpret as “forgiveness” is actually just a reduction in vibration due to how it is distributed when a cavity back iron is mis-hit. In my experience, the actual performance differences on mis-hits between blades and cavity backs is not nearly as signifcant as has been sold to the buying public. We just feel them more with a blade. Of course, that vibration reduction may well result in a more enjoyable experience for players, even if it means very little in actual results.
geohogan
Aug 10, 2020 at 12:37 pm
Most golfers have probably not experienced the sweet feel of pure contact on the sweet spot of a soft carbon muscle back iron.
If a golfer never knows that sweet feel, he or she will never have the opportunity to learn to repeat that proper clubface to ball contact.
ie It may be that the lack of reward(sweet feeling) in order to learn, conditioned response restricts learning?
Mike
Jul 23, 2020 at 12:47 pm
I’ve learned to ignore the number on the bottom of the club and just build my set based on loft. What’s the point difference in carrying 6i to gap wedge as I do or carrying a 7i to the second gap wedge. It’s still the same number of irons I’m carrying. The markings on the clothes have gotten idiotic. Always remember the TM commercial with Nick Faldo 10 years ago where he said “Wow, I’m hitting this 7i as far as my old 6i”. Duh, Nick, the loft on that 7 iron you tested was definitely stronger than your old one and it was 1/2″ longer.
Osnola Kinnard
Jul 22, 2020 at 9:30 pm
I was fitted for a set of Edel SLS01 irons 2 years ago and have not looked back. Not only is the weighting of their irons progressive for the long middle and short irons, the Paderson shafts really do help optimize ball flight, spin, and trajectory.
Granted I am taller and the longer short irons feel way more comfortable to me, the Edels seem to take your advice to heart in the short irons and wedges.
JD Masur
Jul 22, 2020 at 5:20 pm
For that matter, I have a gripe with grips being identical. For the LW, GW and SW, I use reverse taper grips, for the PW-6 iron, I use 2 layers of tennis racquet white hand wrapped grips, for 4-iron hybrid and “Ginty” no taper rubber grips, and for the metal 7, 3 and driver, a tacky white tour wrap.
The reverse taper gives me versatile options for distance control, and the white tennis wraps/no taper grips make it easier to hold the clubs in my fingers. All white grips give a visual signal on when to change them.
James
Jul 22, 2020 at 5:08 pm
My son is a scratch junior player and just got fitted into new irons. Iron fitting by a top fitter took almost 3 hours. Ended up in cavity backs 3-6 and blades 7-PW. Accuracy and distance control is far better. This is good advice Wedge Guy.
Brandon
Jul 22, 2020 at 4:09 pm
Wait, haven’t we been told that we can’t even look at blades if we aren’t scratch?
Shallowface
Jul 23, 2020 at 7:46 pm
The lesson here is, don’t believe everything you are told. About anything.
D
Jul 24, 2020 at 12:44 am
True dat
Douglas Spensley
Jul 22, 2020 at 2:54 pm
I agree. I recently got new cavity back irons, and love the 4 to 6, but can’t control distance and spin under 150 yards or so. I’ve put my old blades wedge and 9 back in the bag, still experimenting with 7 and 8.
Acemandrake
Jul 22, 2020 at 12:16 pm
The turf interaction of a blade may shock some non-blade players.
Is there such a thing as a wide-soled blade? Is there a need/demand for this?
Stan The Man
Jul 22, 2020 at 10:56 am
Couldn’t agree more with this notion. In fact, I was fitted at a top club fitter a few years ago and to get the consistency, dispersion we needed, we ended up fitting me into a mixed set of Srixon blades to cavity back to game improvement irons throughout the set. Love them and most importantly, I trust them.
juststeve
Jul 22, 2020 at 10:25 am
Seems that most of the OEMs are already producing sets with long irons designed to be easier to hit, whether by moving the center of gravity, by use of progressive off-set, etc., whether the design is cavity back or blade. A number have designed their clubs to be compatible as parts of split sets. Good ideas all but sort of yesterdy.
drkviol801
Jul 22, 2020 at 10:13 am
Care to explain why a significant number of PGA tour players play with a pw that matches irons? Easily 35-40% do.
Roy
Jul 22, 2020 at 11:39 am
Doesnt that mean 60-65% don’t??? Remember, not everyone switched from persimmon to metal at the same time as well.
But to answer your question, I would say they are far less prone to “vertical misses” as a 5 handicap is
MakoShark
Jul 24, 2020 at 10:07 am
That means 65-70% do not.
Terry Koehler
Jul 24, 2020 at 10:51 am
That’s a pretty easy question, drkviol801. That’s because most tour players are not playing a severe game improvement iron, and their 9-iron and PW are actually more accurate and more forgiving than ‘tour design’ wedges. That is another whole topic I might have to dive into in a future article.