Opinion & Analysis
The Wedge Guy: Musings from the Masters

Well, another Masters has come and gone and, as always, left me with some observations and ponderings that I thought I would share. I hope you all will add yours to the comments this week, so that we can all get to know one another better.
First, I have to begin by congratulating Dustin Johnson for a masterful display of golf. Setting a new scoring record, playing mostly flawless golf for four days, and taking what Augusta National was willing to serve up. What impressed me the most about his golf for four days is the rarity of a poorly struck golf shot. DJ hit fairways and greens with regularity and precision, and never hit any of “those shots that can lose it for you” that I observed. Congrats, DJ!
Here are some observations that I made . . .
It’s not the great shots as much as the awful ones. To a player, almost all who fell short hit one or more just awful shots that cost them dearly. It was actually amazing to see how far from center they can spray it, actually. Even DJ wasn’t immune, chunking a short pitch to #2. To that end, Augusta National is much like any other golf course, including the ones you play regularly. Solid, not spectacular, shotmaking will keep you “in it”, whether that means winning the Masters or breaking 90. Get rid of your worst shots and the average-to-great ones can shine and save you.
Bunkers are too easy for these guys. The best example of that was DJ on the second hole. Faced with a delicate pitch over a bunker from a tight lie, he chunks it in the bunker. Then he blasts out to two feet or so to save par. These guys are amazing from the bunkers, hitting it close more often than not it seems. Maybe it’s time to remove rakes or something to make bunkers the hazards architects designed them to be, before the invention of the sand wedge.
But they are amazing short game wizards. Watching the best players in the world get up and down from nowhere, time and again, is impressive. The chip that Sungjae Im hit from behind the green on 15 was brilliant. But we saw it time and again from the entire field. The key is that they are all skilled enough to hit a vast array of shots with just the right trajectory and spin, and land the ball very close to the exact spot required. Maybe we should all spend the vast majority of our practice time hitting chips and pitches of all kinds…
Long and middle iron play is almost a relic of a bygone era. You just do not see these guys hitting those clubs very often. Even “Par 5s” are often reached with a short iron nowadays. We are long past the days of Hogan’s famous 1-iron at Merion or Johnny Miller’s precise dismantling of Oakmont in 1973, when he hit 5-iron or longer to at least 13 or 14 greens, and only let the ball get above the hole twice.
Bernhard Langer is amazing. At 63 years old, Mr. Langer ties for 29th, beating more than half the field of players half his age, while giving up 50-75 yards or more to his younger competitors. On Sunday, he hit hybrid or fairway wood to eight of the 12 par four holes, and at least one of the par three holes. And shoots 71! What’s even more remarkable is that less than fifteen of the world’s best players managed to tour four rounds at Augusta National without shooting at least one score higher than Mr. Langer’s two 73s.
Let’s quit “faking it” with par. Mr. Langer’s accomplishments aside, there are really very few true three-shot holes for these players anymore, if they hit a suitable drive. When Bryson DeChambeau declared Augusta National to be “par 67” for him, he was only being genuine. It would be for all these guys if they hit their drives in the right place in the fairway.
Those are my “top six” observations from the rather strange 2020 Masters. What are yours?
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.
-
Equipment3 weeks ago
Callaway launches all-new Opus SP wedges
-
Equipment3 weeks ago
GolfWRX Members Choice presented by 2nd Swing: Best driver of 2025
-
Whats in the Bag3 weeks ago
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
-
Equipment3 weeks ago
BK’s Breakdowns: Cameron Young’s winning WITB, 2025 Wyndham Championship
Northandleft
Nov 22, 2020 at 8:28 am
Golf is a mostly difficult game that partially due to advancements is becoming mastered at the elite level, but let’s not forget the conditioning, discipline and talent that the top players have achieved. To parlay this thread to the grand debate about the golf ball vs the golf course I fear the average golfer will suffer if either are changed. We all compare ourselves to the best because once or more a round we all hit a shot as good as they do. The average golfer survives the game trying to achieve excellence. Placing an additional barrier between the elite and weekender with bifurcation or monster courses is a shot to the heart of the game. The champion every week shoots 6 under 4 days in a row and I keep trying to break 80. No one shoots 59 every week and Very few repeat victory. Let the masters of the game be dragon slayers and let us all make a few par 5’s in 2. There is a lot riding on it.
Johnny Penso
Nov 21, 2020 at 10:06 am
It’s true that par is really meaningless but let’s face it, the crowd is going to cheer harder and television announcers are going to freak out much harder for an “eagle” on a 535 yard par “5” than a birdie on the same hole were we to re-par it. Par 5s are never going away.
Acemandrake
Nov 20, 2020 at 5:17 pm
Bunkers: Just call them all “waste areas” & stop raking them then you’ll see players work to avoid them
Short game practice: Cameron Tringale once said he only practices shots that are <100 yds.
Evan
Nov 20, 2020 at 4:33 am
Yes Augusta is a generous par 72, but the par 5s, especially 13 and 15, are so iconic and have produced so much drama over the years – and that would be lost if they were long par 4s. They’re brilliant risk and reward 5s- short enough that nearly all the field will take them on in two- a chance for an eagle, but also the risk of a high number too.
Boyo
Nov 19, 2020 at 4:04 pm
Maybe we should all spend the vast majority of our practice time hitting chips and pitches of all kinds…
Duh!
Pingback: Morning 9: Tiger’s predicament | A world No. 1 is back in action | Bryson breaks Augusta? Not so much…. – GolfWRX
Mike
Nov 19, 2020 at 7:57 am
The concept of par really has no meaning for the pros. The player w/ the LEAST number of strokes wins every week. So who cares what the par is at any course they play? The ‘under-par’ concept was a TV invention that made it much easier to show who was in the lead.
G daddy
Nov 19, 2020 at 3:32 pm
At the end of the day you’re absolutely correct – but the concept of par has been around since way before TV. And as it relates to the difficulty of the course, it’s interesting to examine and talk about. Do we really want major championships decided at executive course, no of course not.
G daddy
Nov 18, 2020 at 11:18 am
I totally agree with the “par” observation. The PGA tour plays essentially par 66 to 68 courses every week. The US Open is the only course that comes close to a true par, since they usually play par 70 on usually very long courses where the 2 par fives are usually longer than these guys play all year and the par 4’s are usually stretched out. Chamber’s bay was probably the truest to par course the pga tour has played in 10 years – there the par 5’s could all play around 600 yards and the par 4’s were mostly right around 500 yards.
I don’t mind them playing the par 66 to 68 courses, but let’s call it that. Otherwise the concept of par on the PGA tour has no meaning.