Opinion & Analysis
The Wedge Guy: Just what can a golf club do?

Not to bemoan the subject, but I’ve been in somewhat of a slump lately, and that provided the inspiration for this week’s post.
My slump is a peculiar one, in that I’m driving the ball as well as ever, hitting lots of fairways and getting my fair share of distance. But my iron play – usually a strength of my game – has gone sour. So bad, that one of my regular playing buddies offered his suggestion that maybe it was time to ditch my old Ben Hogan FT. Worth 15 blades for a more forgiving set of irons.
I didn’t choose to get into this explanation with him, but thought it was well worth some time invested in this week’s post. If you are thinking about purchasing any new clubs – whether driver, fairways, hybrids, irons or wedges (I’ll leave putters for a separate conversation) – I believe you should start the process by accurately and honestly defining exactly what it is that you are seeking to “fix” with this new purchase.
I see some golf club advertising in the wedge category, for example, that claims this certain product can lead to “no more chunks or skulls.” The fact is . . . that is impossible. With the possible exception of the putter category, the mere changing of a golf club head design has absolutely ZERO effect on the quality of impact with the ball.
All golf clubhead technology for the past 60-plus years has been focused on two essential goals – to make the ball leave the club faster and/or higher, and to mitigate the loss of impact efficiency as ball contact is made other than on the ideal “sweet spot”.
On that subject, every golf club has a single pin-point spot on the face where energy transfer will be optimized. And no matter whether it is a driver, hybrid, iron or wedge, ball impact elsewhere on the face will result in a reduced smash factor, or transfer of clubhead speed to ball speed. In most club categories, the engineers are always focused on how to minimize that loss of smash factor, so that your “less than perfect” shots can be more acceptable and playable.
But here’s the kicker.
The ball can only react to how that clubface is delivered at impact – clubhead speed, path and face angle, and the point of impact on the face – and the golf club designer can only do so much within those parameters.
For example, a face that is open at impact will cause the ball to fly to the right and probably higher (for a right-hand player), and one that is hooded and/or closing through impact will make it go left and lower. All the technology in the world won’t change that. Likewise, for those shots hit fat or “in the forehead”, it really doesn’t matter what the clubhead design is like.
But a shot hit with a square clubface, approaching the ball on a solid path, but slightly missing the sweet spot, can certainly be helped by improved clubhead technology.
However, my observation of thousands of golf shots of my own and hit by my golf buddies over the many years in this game reveals this simple fact of our crazy game.
The vast majority of bad golf shots cannot be helped by golf club technology, as they are the result of bad swing mechanics, not inferior clubhead design. Those mechanics are mostly influenced by the golfer’s grip on the club and his or her pathway through impact. And for those of us who have hit thousands of golf shots over many years, it quite often boils down to poor mental work leading up to the swing.
This sounds like a crazy “reveal” by someone who has made a living for forty years designing and marketing golf clubs, doesn’t it? Yes, I have spent the better part of four decades working to make golf clubs work better, whether it was the hundred-plus putters I’ve designed, two sets of irons or the dozens of wedges I’ve created. I’m very proud of that body of work, as I’ve always been able to improve each generation of design.
That all said, however, I’m convinced most poor golf shots are pre-ordained before the club is ever taken into the backswing, and no amount of golf club technology will ever change that. The pathway to better and more consistent golf will always begin with improving your fundamentals, starting with your grip and posture at address . . . developing sound swing mechanics . . . supported by a healthy, positive mental approach to each shot . . . and then having the right tools in your bag.
Oh, and back to my own slump? I’m recalling sage advice from my father, given to me so many, many years ago . . .
“There’s nothing wrong with your game, son, that another thousand practice balls won’t fix.”
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.
CG
Jul 6, 2022 at 5:35 pm
I’m going to disagree. As a person who spent several decades shooting in the 60’s every week (still hold one course record, a 61 at a course near my home), a few years ago I noticed a drop off in my iron play. After some reflection, I put the Mizunos down and went to a more forgiving club. (Taylormade Speedblades about 8-9 years ago). They’re a little bigger, a little lighter, launch a bit higher and yes, a bit stronger lofted. More mass and a bigger face means there’s less torque on shots not hit perfectly. They don’t feel as good as my forged irons (a bit harsh) but I hit more greens and more shots closer to the hole.
dave d
Jul 6, 2022 at 2:01 pm
Love this. I am an 8 hcp, have played for most of the last 25 years with a set of 1972 Hogan Apex blades I bought used for $35. Despite playing with other irons (e.g., Callaway x-12 Steelhead, Ping Eye 2, Mizuno modern blades, Ping iE1), my best tournament scores and lowest hcp periods have come with the 1972 Hogan blades.
I put the Ping iE1s in the bag early this season and thought I’d see my hcp drop 1-2 strokes based on improved results from marginal mishits. But I didn’t break 80 for two months…then put the Hogans back in the bag and broke 80 4x in the next few weeks.