Opinion & Analysis
The Wedge Guy: The 2 putting triangles

As many of you might know, I began my golf club design path in the mid-1990s by focusing on putter performance. I dove into learning all I could about all aspects of putting, starting with studying the techniques of the greatest putters in the game, as I figured putter design starts with putting technique.
What I discovered and deducted from all that discovery is that the evolution of putter design has been one part of a continuing triangular evolution that also includes putting technique and green speeds. But unlike the chicken-or-the-egg, I believe there is no question that green speeds have always driven changes in golfers’ putting techniques, which in turn has driven changes in putter design. Let me explain.
In the early days of golf, greens were not nearly as smooth or fast as they are now. So, the putter was basically a shorter iron club with a little loft and a light head, so the ball could be rapped across a green that might not have been 5-6 on the current-day Stimpmeter. Bobby Jones famous Calamity Jane and other putters of the early golf years were extremely light.
As green speeds began to pick up through the 1950s and 60s, putters got increasingly heavier to better fit the slower stroke pace that was required, and the top sellers were the Wilson 8802 and its copies, the classic Bullseye and mallet putters from Ray Cook, Otey Crisman and others.
But green speeds continued to increase into the late 1960s, causing golfers to learn to quiet the hands and arms and develop a stroke more controlled by the shoulders. Not coincidentally, an engineer named Karsten Solheim changed putter design forever with his Ping Anser at about that same time. It was the first true heel/toe balanced putter, but more importantly, it introduced the “plumber’s neck” hosel design. Very simply, what that design did was introduce the concept of “toe hang” and dramatically reduced that element of putter design. The number of very close copies to that putter design is mind-boggling, and it is said that over 95 percent of all golfers have – at one time or another – putted with that style of putter.
But the golf course agronomists weren’t done yet. Green speeds continued to increase, sending many older professional golfers home with the “yips”, and causing putters to evolve ever heavier to fit the slower, more deliberate stroke that continued to be required. The challenge of keeping a square putter face through impact at those slow stroke speeds led to the development of “face balanced” designs, then to the myriad of putting grip variations, beginning with “left-hand-low”, then evolving to the long putter, belly putter, arm-lock, and variations of the “claw”.
Who knows where it can go from here, but let’s talk about the “other” putting triangle.
Rolling the ball across a green into the hole is also a three-part process. The sides of the triangle are stroke speed, stroke path and putter face angle at impact. Of the three, research seems to prove the latter as the most difficult variable to control consistently.
Throughout history, there have been great putters with all kinds of stroke paths and speed control methods. The early golfers dealt with very slow greens compared to what we have now, and most employed somewhat of a “pop” stroke, as they had to generate some clubhead speed to move the ball suitably. Bobby Locke was said to hook all his putts with a very inside out stroke path . . . some stood very upright, while others crouched a lot.
Into the 60s and 70s, we saw great putters like Jack Nicklaus, Tom Watson and Ben Crenshaw employ very different styles, but all made putts like crazy with those differing approaches to the stroke.
But there is one constant in putting; the face angle has to be square to the starting line at impact in order for the ball to start down that line. It has been proven through slow-motion cameras that the ball will react to the face angle. Period. While it might be more efficient to groove a stroke that is also pretty square to the line at impact, there are good putters whose stroke comes into the ball a little from the inside or outside, but in order to make putts, they find a way to keep the putter face square to the intended line at impact.
What makes putting so darned difficult is this:
The majority of putter designs exhibit some degree of “toe hang” as a result of the design of the shaft/head connection and the center of mass of the putter head. When put into motion in the forward stroke, these putter heads “want” to follow the shaft motion to this same “toe hang” degree – it’s simple physics. A face-balanced putter does as well, but to much less of a degree. But with any putter, the difficulty lies in the fact that you have to square the face at impact with a subtle counter-rotational force in your grip on the putter. Since putts of different lengths require different clubhead speeds in the forward stroke, your counter-rotational force must be different for every length putt you face.
Given all this, isn’t it a wonder we make as many as we do?
I hope this generates lots of questions and comments by all of you . . . if you would like to stay on this topic for another post or two, I’m game.
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.
Pingback: The Wedge Guy: A putting experiment – GolfWRX
Dan G
Jul 29, 2022 at 11:52 pm
Not sure purpose of the article, I think I missed something. Also, need to pay respects to TP Mills as one of the OG.