32 Comments

1. 

   cody

   Jul 2, 2015 at 2:11 pm

   This article makes no sense. your data does not back up your conclusion.

   Reply Report comment
2. 

   Steve Daniel

   Apr 18, 2015 at 8:24 am

   I would rather know the difference in “raw” vs “chrome” or other finishes. the golf ball I use has a bigger influence on spin than this test with new vs. old.

   Reply Report comment
3. 

   A

   Apr 9, 2015 at 1:53 pm

   So, a super worn wedge spins just as much or up to 1000 rpm less than a brand new wedge? That’s the real take-away, right? I suppose that can be also regarded as a 0% or 10-20% reduction.

   How much spin does the ball have when it lands?

   My understanding, I can’t reproduce the trackman article as I can’t find it at the moment, is that on full shots the spin rate of a ball when it hits the green will roughly be the same (about 500 rpm) and the “lift” aspect has worn off and so it descends.

   My understanding is that the more spin that is generated at the start of the ball’s flight, the higher the launch, the shorter the distance the ball flies and the steeper the landing angle. And that it’s this last element, the landing angle, that allows the ball to land and spin back.

   Not every player wants or needs that. Did this “study” compare the deviation in spin rates shot to shot? Did the new wedge spin the ball more consistently at the same rate vs the super old wedge, or was there more variance shot to shot? I’d rather know my shot will react similarly on each shot than be concerned solely with the quantity of spin. It’s rather frustrating when you hit the middle of the green and it spins back off the front, or you expect it to spin with your brand new wedge so you hit it 10 yards past and it just stays there. At least in the process of wearing down a wedge, you’ve become familiar with how it reacts. But if you have access to a tour van and you’re familiar with how a brand new wedge reacts, than by all means, swap ’em out every round.

   Reply Report comment
4. 

   Gary Gutful

   Apr 7, 2015 at 3:41 am

   There are some super smug gits that comment on these articles.

   Personally, I am glad that there are contributors that bother with these experiments (even if the methods aren’t accredited by the Society of Data Crunching Golf Noobs).

   Loving the rusty look of my Mack Daddys but would happily replace if/when they stop cutting the pistachios in the spin department.

   Reply Report comment
5. 

   marcus

   Apr 6, 2015 at 9:49 am

   This study is scientifically un-measurable. Thanks for trying though.

   Reply Report comment
   • 

     TheCityGame

     Apr 7, 2015 at 10:31 am

     I love it when a guy thinks he’s sounding smart but ends up saying something completely stupid.

     “This study is scientifically unmeasurable”.

     What the hell does that even mean, dude? Are you trying to measure the study? The STUDY is scientifically unmeasurable?

     Is there a way that it is measurable but just not in a scientific way?

     Do you mean the spin rate on the clubs is not measurable?

     If you’re going to be that smug about it (“thanks for trying though”), you better be able to come up with better reasoning than “this study is unscientifically unmeasurable”. Nonsense.

     Reply Report comment
     • 

       Bob Pegram

       Jun 15, 2015 at 6:36 pm

       Maybe he means that there are so many variables in how each player’s swing, angle of attack, etc. reacts with the club and ball, that it is impossible to make general conclusions. Even the author of the article mentioned that he was used to the sharper front edge of his most worn wedge which may explain the high spin from that wedge. It works for his swing – or he has gotten used to it and made his swing work with it> – who knows?

       Reply Report comment
6. 

   MRC

   Apr 4, 2015 at 12:20 am

   Love my Mizuno wedges even after two years.
   The grooves look a bit tired but they come alive on the course.
   Thanks for the article Tom.

   Reply Report comment
7. 

   Dave

   Apr 2, 2015 at 7:28 pm

   So in order to prevent hitting shots that don’t spin, we need to change our wedges when we notice that they’re not spinning? What a waste of a read.

   Reply Report comment
8. 

   Ken N

   Apr 2, 2015 at 4:52 pm

   I just wrote to Barney Adams about this very topic a couple of weeks ago, so I was pleased to see it addressed here today. Part of my question that was left unanswered, though, was: aren’t today’s wedges made of tougher stuff, to last longer, than previous generations of wedges? If the limit was, say, 5,000 strikes per wedge five years ago, shouldn’t I expect to get 25% more out of today’s space-age-materials club? The Big Names are marketing them that way, and they’re certainly priced that way.

   Reply Report comment
9. 

   Scott

   Apr 2, 2015 at 2:55 pm

   Tom,
   Tom,
   Were you surprised that the differences were not more pronounced? Maybe I just can not comprehend the difference in 400 to 600 rpm, it does not seem like a lot. Although 1000 rpm on the full shot seems substantial, it would be nice to see was this means on the green in various conditions. I guess that is something that I can play with on my own.

   A side question. I have used a grove sharpening tool. Are there tests at a USGA event to see if the wedges comply? If not, do you know of anyone getting call out for illegal grooves?
   Thanks

   Reply Report comment
10. 

    other paul

    Apr 2, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    I like that the clubs are different but all the same loft. Because not everyone buys a new set of vokeys every year or two. Lots of people buy different brands each time. I played Cleveland two years ago, now vokeys, thinking of Mack daddy’s next time. This is probably more realistic for the majority of golfers.

    Reply Report comment
11. 

    other paul

    Apr 2, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    Well Tom, I look forward to the same article in 5 years when you have had time to spend $450 on 3 identical wedges. I hope you enjoy storing one, hitting one 10,000 times to wear it out, and hitting one 30,000 times to really wear it out. And then rewriting this article for all the angry people.

    Reply Report comment
    • 

      other paul

      May 16, 2015 at 1:12 pm

      Looks like there are two of us…

      Reply Report comment
12. 

    AndyP

    Apr 2, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    What I got from the article is go source some really old worm wedges from the bargain bin. Cheers

    Reply Report comment
    • 

      petie3_2

      Aug 23, 2015 at 7:40 am

      My wedges of choice are 30 year old pre-Vokey Titleists; they’re almost identical to Vokeys but slightly heavier and better in the wet, long grass and sand. I had to pay $9 for one. (sob, outrageous).

      Reply Report comment
13. 

    mark

    Apr 2, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    All the statements are correct. The article is correct in that a new wedge will give you more backspin. If it doesn’t interest, you then don’t buy a new wedge. Sandblasting the face is a cheaper alternative and makes the old wedge spin like new and you keep the same feel of the familiar wedge.

    Reply Report comment
14. 

    Philip

    Apr 1, 2015 at 11:56 pm

    I wonder if this is why we see so many PGA players with rusty wedges. Maybe the rough surface gives them a consistent spin that doesn’t tend to change as they replace wedges.

    Reply Report comment
15. 

    Mike

    Apr 1, 2015 at 7:30 pm

    According to Andrew Rice in The Wedge Project, it’s actually the surface area on the clubface between the grooves that through friction impart the majority of the spin on the golf ball. Andrew recommends to find a local business that does sandblasting and have them sandblast the face of your wedge a few time per year with aluminum oxide. I found a place that does it for $5 a club after which it spins like day it came off the rack.

    Reply Report comment
    • 

      Philip

      Apr 1, 2015 at 11:53 pm

      Same reason why some PGA players do not clean the sand out of their wedge grooves after coming out of the bunker – extra spin. I could put some water on my wedges and do a few practice shots in the sand before play to get them ready. I guess I could always empty the sand out of my bag after a few weeks or so.

      Reply Report comment
16. 

    Tom Stickney

    Apr 1, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    RG– I take umbrage that you feel this way; I do articles based on facts. I don’t sell clubs nor do I get paid to do these articles. Thus I have no bias other than the facts.

    Reply Report comment
    • 

      RG

      Apr 1, 2015 at 10:53 pm

      OR
      The other thing is you can over spin a wedge. Sam Snead said,” I never made any money with my ball coming back at me.”
      Jackie Burke still plays the same wedge he used to win Augusta in the 50’s.
      The”facts” that you represent in your article are based on a data set from a machine, and from the photos you attached three dissimilar clubs. .Empirically speaking your data sets are flawed. In addition here are more “facts” that go into visualizing and creating good wedge shots. other than new grooves and more spin. Touch and feel have a lot to do with it and new wedges can be counter productive to this end.
      Thank you for sharing and I do not mean any rudeness toward you and your findings, but your experiment is flawed,

      Reply Report comment
    • 

      Steve Daniel

      Apr 18, 2015 at 9:10 am

      Tom, don’t take offence.
      as a retired engineer I like data, but there are too many things left unsaid in this review. for this to be a valid test you would need several sets of documented clubs with several samples of balls, people, and etc. that doesn’t mean that I didn’t enjoy the article. I do the same types of things myself.

      Reply Report comment
17. 

    Nathan

    Apr 1, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    Brand New Pro V1 Ball makes my wedges feel new again

    Reply Report comment
18. 

    Perry

    Apr 1, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    The only way I’d buy this is that if all 3 clubs were the exact same model with the exact same shaft. It’s an awesome idea, but I don’t think you’re comparing apples to apples. You’d get similar results if you had three different head/shaft combinations of new clubs.

    Reply Report comment
    • 

      Dave S

      Apr 1, 2015 at 2:42 pm

      Took the words right out of my mouth. From the pics, it’s pretty clear they are not the same brand.

      Reply Report comment
    • 

      RG

      Apr 1, 2015 at 4:54 pm

      You are 100% correct. This “article” is another in a long line of “you need to go buy new clubs” articles.
      OR
      The other thing is you can over spin a wedge. Sam Snead said,” I never made any money with my ball coming back at me.”
      Jackie Burke still plays the same wedge he used to win Augusta in the 50’s.

      Reply Report comment
19. 

    Brody

    Apr 1, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    Tom,

    Nice article, I enjoyed it. Would you foresee those Groove Sharpener tools making any difference on spin rates? Replacing wedges every season can certainly get expensive; I’d be interested in seeing if those tools make any difference on Trackman.

    Reply Report comment
    • 

      Steve

      Apr 1, 2015 at 1:00 pm

      +1

      Reply Report comment
    • 

      Jon

      Apr 1, 2015 at 1:56 pm

      The only problem with groove sharpeners is if you cut the grooves too deep that club becomes non-conforming. Since I don’t play in any USGA sanctioned tournaments and no longer maintain GHIN, I use the groove sharpener at the beginning of every season (Golf Works part no. GW1111) and it does a pretty good job. It saves me $120/year which buys me about 3 rounds of golf.

      Reply Report comment
20. 

    Mikko U

    Apr 1, 2015 at 11:56 am

    Interesting to read that there wouldn’t be much difference on partial swings. For me there was a huge difference going from three years old wedges to new ones even on 40-yard chip/pitch shots. They turned into hop and stop rather than hop and roll out.

    Also, isn’t there quite a lot of slippage from any 58* wedge? So wouldn’t some 50-52 degree wedges have worked better as there’s less slipping due to the loft and the grooves would have probably made a bigger difference (or showed more precisely that there isn’t a difference)?

    Reply Report comment
21. 

    Chuck

    Apr 1, 2015 at 11:42 am

    I don’t doubt the data; but almost as important to spin, is the feel I have developed with older wedges. Weight, balance, bounce, etc. Before the groove rule went into effect, I bought a handful of the kind of gap wedge (Vokey 452.08) and sand wedge (Vokey 258.08) that I love, and I nurse them as much as possible. So while the grooves do get worn, at least they are pre-rule grooves. Legal for me until 2024.

    This all gives real meaning to the short-lived (why???) TaylorMade solution, which was to supply exchangeable faces for its XFT series wedges.

    http://www.taylormadegolf.asia/bn/xft-wedge-specifications.php

    Reply Report comment

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