Opinion & Analysis
The Wedge Guy: Buyer beware?

It was nearly 20 years ago, when a close friend and business partner suggested I sometimes shake up my blog posts by getting “deep in the weeds” with valuable information about golf equipment and the industry around it. Over a couple of beers and a great burger, we came up with my alter ego, “The Texas Wedgehog,” and his mantra, “Rootin’ out the truth.”
From time to time, I’ve donned that persona to dive into topics that are a somewhat edgy and that might seem a bit sacrilegious for a guy that has made his living in the golf equipment industry for over forty years now. But in my first life as an ad guy, one thing that I despised was advertising that was less than truthful about a product or service. I share that same set of values about the golf equipment industry.
So, today I want to share a couple of recent stories with you that seem to suggest that maybe we should approach buying golf equipment with a bit more research and exploration, rather than to just take manufacturer’s claims and published information at its face value.
This is not to demean the industry or any of its players. Golf club design and marketing is a fast-paced environment, and all golfers have benefited from the vast amount of science and manufacturing technologies that are applied to helping us hit better golf shots. There are a lot of great products for us to choose from.
But as I have noted in prior articles, there is a limit to what golf clubs can do for your game, while there are also great attributes to equipping yourself with modern and meaningful technologies. The point of today’s article is that you need to be careful and maybe inquire a bit deeper before you just assume things about the clubs you are considering, or that you have purchased. Just a couple of examples why . . .
Case Study #1 – What does “forged” really mean?
I often like to try things other companies are producing, so I recently purchased a set of modern blade irons – you know, the ones that claim to have added technologies to make blade style irons more “techy.” And because I’m a die-hard fan of forged irons, I selected a forged model, evidenced by the fact that “FORGED” was stamped right there on the hosel.
The first thing I did when I unpacked them was to run them through my loft/lie machine to make sure the lofts were accurate and to adjust the lie angles to my own spec of 2* flat. At least that was my goal.
I’ve adjusted lie angles on hundreds of clubs in my golf life, and anyone who has done that can quickly tell the difference between a forged head and a cast one. Forgings bend easily, and most castings are brutally hard and unmalleable. These were definitely not fully forged, as it took all my strength to move the lie angles even two degrees; at most they only have a forged face in their multi-piece construction. To me, putting “FORGED” on the hosel is more than misleading, it is downright untruthful. So, now I wonder if I can trust anything else this company says about its products?
Case Study #2 – Shaft flexes can be anything
My club’s general manager asked me why I thought his new irons from Company ‘A’ were performing so differently than his previous irons from Company ‘B’. Though both were similar modern blade designs, and both had shafts that were indicated as “stiff” flex, he was hitting the new irons out on the toe consistently and much higher. So, I suggested he bring both sets to the Edison shop and we’d put them through all the measuring devices to see just what might be causing that issue.
I will add that the two sets of irons had different shafts in them, the first set being one major shaft brand’s mid-weight steel shaft in a “stiff” flex, the newer set having a lighter weight shaft (by 10 grams) from a different major brand shaft company, also marked “stiff.”
But that’s where the similarity ended. Once I put them on the Mitchell Digital Frequency Analyzer, his performance issue came very clear. The newer set of irons delivered frequency readings of 28 to 35 CPM lower than his earlier set, which equates to three full flexes! So, with that much softer shaft in his new set, he was obviously experiencing more “shaft droop” through impact, which was causing the toe hit pattern and higher ball flight.
A major challenge of the golf club industry is that there are no recognized “standards” for anything. Not lofts, not lengths, not in shaft flex designations. Heck, companies don’t even agree on how club length should be measured, much less what a standard length might be. That makes it tough to compare one club to another in a fair manner.
My goal with this blog is to share things I’ve learned in a lifetime of golf and 40+ years in the golf equipment industry. These case studies definitely prove that you should be very careful when purchasing equipment to make sure you get what you think you bought.
If I were a consumer, I would always insist that a new club be put on measuring equipment before I ever hit it to make sure I’m getting what I think I purchased.
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.
Mike
Jul 24, 2022 at 10:54 pm
I agree with many of your points regarding the lack of standards. However, when it comes to shaft frequencies, I think it’s important to understand that CPM readings do not necessarily equate between different brands and types of shafts. Your statement that a difference 28 to 35 CPM’s equates to 3 flexes is true ONLY if you are talking about the same model shaft! In your example, you are comparing different shaft models, so it is not a fair statement.
I have had a frequency analyzer for over 30 years, and have learned to use the term “adjustment factor” when comparing different shafts. Without getting too technical, I have used single frequency matching in my clubs, where I build all clucs to the same frequency…no need to get into a discussion about that here :-). In the past, I had a set of clubs shafted with TT Dynamic shafts measuring 300 CPM. When the Rifle shafts came out in the 1990’s, I started testing them and found that at 300 CPM they played much stiffer than the TT Dynamic shafts. Through trial and error, I learned that a Rifle shaft built to 291 CPM felt and played similar to my 300 CPM TT Dynamic shafts. Hence, I would call that a 9 cycle adjustment factor. Today, I am using a particular model of Fiberspeed iron shafts which I build at 277 CM, a 23 cycle adjustment factor. If I were to build the Fiberspeed shafts to 300 CPM I would find them to be WAY too stiff!
Again, I mention this so that people don’t simply use a CPM number to evaluate or compare the stiffness of different shafts.
MICHAEL
Jul 23, 2022 at 6:03 pm
Had a TERRIBLE experience w/ Mizuno. Ordered an iron set 2 deg upright & I couldn’t hit them for crap; every shot felt as if it were hit off the toe. Took them back to Golf Galaxy where I purchased them. They put all 7 irons on the lie angle machine & ALL were 2 to 3 degrees flatter than I ordered. They called Mizuno & Mizuno tried to blame it on them (even though the order form CLEARLY stated 2 deg upright). The Galaxy staff got into a huge yelling match on the phone w/ Mizuno (I witnessed all of this) before Mizuno FINALLY agreed to take the irons back & adjust them properly.
I know many folks swear by Mizuno but after that experience I never looked at another Mizuno club. The lesson here: when you receive your irons, as the article says, CHECK THEM!!!
Boisepro59
Jul 26, 2022 at 11:04 am
Have been in the industry 40 years and have to say Michael that your experience with Mizuno is extremely rare.
Having some experience with Golf Galaxy I would say the fault would lie more with them
than Mizuno, especially if the GG staff was “yelling” on the phone.
Ryan
Jul 22, 2022 at 12:35 pm
I’m betting TM
Geoffrey
Jul 22, 2022 at 11:04 am
We need to know the names of companies putting “forged” on a club that is perhaps only partly forged. Please name names.
Brian
Jul 23, 2022 at 12:34 pm
I mean…they’re pretty obvious. TM does it with their hollow irons, same with Callaway and their Apex/Pro line. Same with Titleist’s TS100 and Srixon ZX-5. Pretty much any player’s distance irons, with the exception of Mizuno’s 921 Forged which is a true one-piece forging, are multi-piece constructions where only the face or body is actually forged.
Mr. Amazed
Jul 21, 2022 at 5:21 pm
Groundbreaking
SpaceGolfer
Jul 21, 2022 at 4:32 am
Well it’s certainly not a news that there are assembled heads where only the face is forged…but usual is also declared into the specs…unless is intentionally not.
Hard to believe that with your knowledge of the market you were not aware of this.
If it’s a case of misleading advertising then name the company.
Andy
Jul 20, 2022 at 1:23 pm
Call the companies out!