Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

The Wedge Guy: The case against set-match wedges

Published

on

One side-effect of the relentless effort by major iron makers to win the “launch monitor wars” that pit one 6- or 7-iron against another is that the lofts throughout sets of irons have been continually strengthened to a point of what I consider ridiculousness. There are two major problems with this trend in specifications for sets of irons. The first is that to try to win the “launch monitor wars,” iron makers have to try to make their 6- and 7-irons go farther than the other guys’. That means making those mid-irons stronger in loft and using a bit of “trickery” by increasing the loft gapping between your higher-loft scoring clubs so that your “P-club” doesn’t get too strong, too (though modern “P-clubs” of 43-45 degrees of loft are really not “pitching wedges” at all).

Historically, iron lofts progressed through the set at four-degree loft intervals, and .5-inch length differentials. This wasn’t happenstance at all, it was the result of rigorous testing by professionals and average golfers. Those technical differences typically delivered consistent distance gapping from the pitching wedge down through the set.

A review of the specifications of almost every set of irons on the market today, however, will reveal that loft differentials are now five degrees between the short irons and as little as two degrees at the long end of the set. This is totally counter-intuitive to how you can improve your short iron and wedge precision. Why in the world would you want to increase the distance differences between your shorter irons, which is where you most need distance control precision? After all, a 6-iron shot that is 25 to 30 feet long or short is pretty darn good, but it sucks if you have a 9-iron or wedge in your hands.

Understand that the “holy grail” of distance in golf club design is the combination of high launch and low spin. Achieving this is relatively simple – put as much mass in the bottom of the golf clubhead as possible.

So, the second major problem caused by the “launch monitor wars” is how modern irons are designed. The early “solution” to longer-hitting mid-irons was extreme sole-weighting with thinner faces. The newer technologies we’re seeing in irons combine even faster faces with heavy tungsten inserts in the sole of the club.

But the problem with almost all irons on the market – especially in the “game improvement” category – is that this same design and technologies are applied throughout the “matched” set of irons and even into “wedges” that display that same design concept. And that’s where your prime scoring clubs are being compromised.

High launch and low spin are great in a driver or fairway wood, and maybe even desirable in your middle irons — but that is the exact opposite of what you need to achieve consistent distance precision in prime scoring range when you have a short iron or wedge in your hands.

Almost all accomplished players have learned to hit their short irons and wedges with a penetrating ball flight and lots of spin to stop the ball in its tracks once it hits the green. So why would you ever want to play short irons and wedges that have all their mass at the bottom, which is designed to deliver the exact opposite of what you should be seeking?

Now, let’s go back to the title of today’s post.

Either your 6- or 7-iron is 28 to 30 degrees of loft – but have you ever stopped to think that this loft is closer to that of your driver than to where your “wedge” lofts begin (around 45 degrees)? I feel certain that no golfer in the history of the world has ever proclaimed

“I really like my 7-iron. Can you make me a driver that looks just like it?”

In fact, from your 7-iron down to your driver, you likely have at least four, if not five, completely different clubhead designs in order to optimize performance at a given range of lofts. That iron design might evolve to a driving iron design a few degrees lower, then most likely to a hybrid design a few degrees lower than that, then to a fairway wood as lofts get below twenty degrees, and finally to a driver at 9 to 12 degrees.

So, if it takes four to five completely different clubhead designs to optimize performance at the long end of the set, how realistic is it that only one design throughout your set of irons can deliver the performance and precision you need at the short end?

I’ve always believed that every club in your bag has a specific purpose and expectation. Fairway woods, hybrids, and long irons are to get you close to or maybe even on the green from a long-distance approach. With middle irons (5 through 7 or 8), your goal is to get on the green within a reasonable distance, or certainly not to leave yourself a tough greenside save.

Your “money clubs” are those with lofts above 37 to 40 degrees, as this is where you have a chance to get close enough for the occasional one-putt, whether that is for a birdie, par, or bogey. And this is the end of your set where you likely have not spent the time to make sure it’s just right.

To accent just how important this part of your set really is, did you know (if you discount the fact that almost all so-called par-5 holes on the tour are really just long par 4s for those guys) the entire PGA Tour is over par outside 9-iron range?

Something to think about, for sure.

Terry Koehler is a fourth generation Texan and a graduate of Texas A&M University. Over his 40-year career in the golf industry, he has created over 100 putter designs, sets of irons and drivers, and in 2014, he put together the team that reintroduced the Ben Hogan brand to the golf equipment industry. Since the early 2000s, Terry has been a prolific writer, sharing his knowledge as “The Wedge Guy”.   But his most compelling work is in the wedge category. Since he first patented his “Koehler Sole” in the early 1990s, he has been challenging “conventional wisdom” reflected in ‘tour design’ wedges. The performance of his wedge designs have stimulated other companies to move slightly more mass toward the top of the blade in their wedges, but none approach the dramatic design of his Edison Forged wedges, which have been robotically proven to significantly raise the bar for wedge performance. Terry serves as Chairman and Director of Innovation for Edison Golf – check it out at www.EdisonWedges.com.

7 Comments

7 Comments

  1. Paul Lafleur

    Jul 26, 2023 at 10:40 am

    Wow, I absolutely must have the set’s GW. It’s basically the PW i grew up with. i do not pitch or chip with it. I cannot imagine someone thinking this way.

  2. Pingback: Iron fitting is a logical process, but Wedge Guy says it's not. - Fly Pin High

  3. Pingback: Wedge Guy: There’s no logic to iron fitting – GolfWRX

  4. Jules Burgess

    Jun 29, 2023 at 12:24 pm

    Very well written piece . I have started again after a gap of 10 years and bought some new Hogans last year as a combo set which works well, but I want to buy another set of clubs for Winter golf and was amazed checking current lofts on various brands . I realised some time ago that a pro hitting a 9 iron( or a wedge) as far as they do could only be achieved in reality with a tweaked loft , but had not appreciated that it had hit the mainstream .

  5. Matts

    Jun 29, 2023 at 10:16 am

    Agree totally! Most golfers are very gullible unfortunately to the 7 iron long distance race. Playing partner hits a modern day 7 iron the same distance and carry as an older traditional 6 iron and thinks he is benefitting from new technology. Guess what, the above two irons have exactly the same lofts!

    • Ryan

      Jul 2, 2023 at 12:33 pm

      So true! I play a set with traditional lofts so my 7 iron is 35°. Distance can’t come close to a 7 that’s lofted 30-32°.

    • Bob Pegram

      Aug 18, 2023 at 5:37 pm

      I agree completely. I use an old set of Callaway irons: RAZR X Forged cavity backs – the ones Furyk used to shoot 58. They are from 2011 and have old lofts. Even with those I still need 4 wedges: PW, GW, SW, LW. My PW is 47 degrees and my GW is 51 degrees.

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

Published

on

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

Continue Reading

Podcasts

Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Published

on

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!

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Published

on

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

 

A post shared by BBC SPORT (@bbcsport)

“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.

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending