USGA Notice: We're Looking At High Lofted Wedges
Bout and Gas are reporting over at their GolfDigest.com blog that the USGA has issued a notice suggesting...
...the USGA will be conducting "research on high-lofted wedges. This research is being conducted to determine if high-lofted wedges (for example, 60 degrees of loft and higher) can reduce the challenge of the game for shots near the green." I have heard recently that players at this year's U.S. Amateur attacked the bowl-shaped greens at Pinehurst No. 2 with a fleet of high-lofted wedges. Not exactly what Donald Ross had envisioned, I believe. Let's get rid of those wedges. The only people who really know how to use them are good players anyway. Allowing a club to further help a good player more than an average player is unnecessary at this stage, moreover letting a good player not have to develop the skill of manipulating a lower-lofted wedge to hit a particular shot is encouraging a leveling of the playing field that strikes at the heart of what golf competition should be.
You could also make that case for most modern equipment: it helps the elite player more than it helps the average man (Tom Wishon has discussed this at length).
After Gas' comments above, Bout agrees and argues that the limit should be 58 degrees.
Back in 2002, Charles Howell III carried a Cleveland 588 64-degree wedge, saying that although the club was effective, it didn't get much call. "I rarely use the 64-degree club--maybe two times a tournament," he said. "But it's perfect when I short-side a green or if there's long rough and hard, fast greens. Then it's almost like cheating--the ball stops wherever it lands."
Whenever you hear a player say, "it's almost like cheating," then it's time to look into things.
Fair point. However, here's why this is a mistake for the USGA to pursue:
- It takes great skill to pull off a high-lofted wedge shot. The more loft a club has, the more difficult it is to hit shots with any consistency. Yet restoration of "skill" is the primary motivation on the groove rule change, albeit a shallow definition of it (rewarding the striking of drives down a narrow center line).
- The recovery shot has taken a beating in the era of high rough and slick greens. Do we really want to eliminate one more recovery shot? One that takes skill to pull off? I don't think so. Unfortunately, too many governing body leaders are penal school aficionados and the recovery shot is forbidden in that cynical approach to golf.
- Serious pursuit of loft will negate the positive reaction to the groove rule change by only reinforcing the notion that the governing bodies are looking to do anything but even discuss something like the golf ball. (BTW, we're entering year seven since the first time the words "ball study" were uttered.)
- High lofted wedges require soft conditions. You need lush turf to pull off the "cheating" shots that they speak of. It also helps to have a receptive target to land your ball on. In other words, firm conditions generally negate the impact of the high-lofted wedge. Perhaps the real issue here is widespread overwatering and lush, green-at-all-costs turf?
Please, your thoughts?
Friday, December 12, 2008 at 08:57 AM
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (34)
If a lob wedge is such a big deal, why do half of my friends not carry one?
That said, I would rather see some other sort of restriction, such as on the number of clubs players can carry, rather than restricting loft. Your point that the 60 and 64 degree clubs give better players an answer to insane pin locations, relative to their skill, is a good one. The risk also goes up, as you say, with dry conditions, but again I think the USGA is pursuing this precisely because they think the players ARE successful with these clubs even in the most extreme conditions.
It seems few pros carry wedges above 60°, so why regulate what isn't used? Let em carry 70° wedges of they got the balls to hit them (so to speak). Again it seems to be a ploy to avoid looking at the real problem.
I agree with 86g, reduce the number of clubs. I know you disagree with that position, but make the pros think even harder about the clubs they choose to carry. Most amateurs will score the same with 10 clubs as 14 (maybe better).
The Big K
As for the absence of bladed shots with lob and extreme wedges, what clubs do you see good players blading there 86? That's certainly not something I see.
The USGA, & the R&A for that matter, have a long history of placing restrictions on golf club construction and even outright banning of club types. Clubs that give a clear advantage to groups of players such as professionals or even individuals.
For example, Walter Travis' Schenectady Putter remained banned by the R&A until 1952.
I personally like the idea. I use a standard pitching wedge for every type of shot. Learning the game as I did in the early 1960's one was taught to use imagination rather than formula as today's player does.
Um, dude, Ross certainly never envisioned linoleums-slick green speeds for those greens, either. The high-lofted wedges are necessary for greens that are far too fast for the severity of the slopes on the greens. Anyone remember Shinnecock '04?
cut everything down to collar height, those lob wedges become chunking machines.
And why do we have to do this? Because the USGA lacked the competence to do what every other sport does and regulate the ball with which the sport is played, and it lacked the courage to correct its mistake when it was exposed.
It is time for the USGA to be replaced as the rule making body for the sport of golf. If Augusta National Golf Club were in charge of the rules, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Does this mean they recognize there is one?
Like the groove thang, it appears to be misdirection. A concept they clearly have a handle on.
What if, instead of that kind of response, the response is for players make up for the loss of sqaure-grooved 60-degree wedges, and to put 64, 68 and perhaps even 70-degree wedges in their bags, and engage in even more bombing and gouging?
Wasn't the same true for the 1 Iron?
This gets to the heart of it. I see the same thing at my club -- the multi-year club champ is a penal school guy who's had trees planted to prevent recovery shots. Trees! The combination of high skill and time to kill on golf club committees without understanding anything about course architecture is deadly.
All the ball-rollback arguments presume that distance is the problem. If you believe this, then one conclusion is that the USGA is "applying band-aids" or "lacks the courage to correct its mistakes," etc.
Maybe the USGA doesn't believe distance is a problem.
It is possible to believe this, rationally.
If you don't believe distance is a problem, then doing things like addressing grooves, club lofts, etc., is perfectly rational, gets right to the core of the problem as they see it (not a band-aid), and is plenty courageous.
As time goes by and distance levels off-which it has, or has even decreased slightly-and all the famous courses have completed their modernizations, the argument for rolling back the ball becomes more and more silly, even if it IS the root cause of all of these alleged problems.
Are you Wally Uihlein?
Or do you work for Wally Uihlein?
Or are you just BFF with Wally Uihlein?
I think the groove rule change is BS. Why change clubs that help recreational golfer because a fraction of 1% of golfers hit them too well? I couldn't give a hoot about "bifrucation" or differerent rules for televised golf. Make them play limited clubs & balls. Let the rest of us play stuff that makes the game easier. So, when my favorite wedges wear out, I'll replace them with "new" older models that I like. I may even stock up on a replacement 64. My limited use suggests you can hit some incredible shots with it and with less risk than opening up a 58 or 60.
I recently went to a 54 degree and a 58 degree, and I'm finally comfortable with my wedges. I think it's a decent compromise. I used to carry a 52 and a 56, and I miss the 52 a little bit, but I'm finally comfortable with my wedges. Let them go ahead and change the rule. I can't see myself hitting anything with a higher loft than the 58 degree.
I'm not in favor of this rule. Not everyone chooses to play the high-lofted wedges on the PGA Tour, and in the amateur game they usually cause more harm than good - but it's the player's choice. Every 64 degree club in the bag means another has to be taken out - I could be convinced perhaps to change rules re: # of clubs.
And CC, cut the bull. You act as if there are no rules re: the ball. There are. They've had the same rules for a long, long time now. Science let companies combine Pinnacle distance with acceptable short-game spin. That's all.
Also, according to recent stories it appears Titleist combined TOP-FLITE distance with a urethane cover (also pioneered by Spalding by the way) to create the Pro V1. It had nothing to do with the Pinnacle. Just wanted to set the record straight.
BTW, I Googled your name. Got something called "TheSandTrap.com." Quite a bit of Titleist advertising there, so if that's yours I can see why you're upset with me.
Your thinly veiled insults don't speak well of your chosen username. I will point out that, unlike many others, I post here under my own name as I've got nothing to hide. Titleist advertises with us just as they advertise on sites for which Geoff writes. Not a big deal. They also advertise in magazines, on billboards, on TV, and in several other places.
I'm reminded of a quote, which was something like "Never argue with an idiot: they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." I'll take that advice now, as I'm comfortable with my understanding of the rules.
I don't think anything I've written here has been personal or insulting, but on the other hand you just called me an idiot. And after I gave your website a free plug.
Bill James, the great baseball writer, researcher, and statistician, once asked Whitey Herzog a question in a post-game press conference. James asked Herzog whether the fact that a team had given up 5 ground ball singles might be saying something about the team's infield defense. James was laughed out of the room by both Herzog and the assembled sportswriters. Why? Because "everyone knows" that pitchers give up hits. All fielders do is make errors. Of course, years later, and with painstaking attention to details and honest inquiry, James and others have been proven right. And all because they've been willing to throw out conventional wisdom and ask rational questions.
So what I am suggesting to you is that you try to consider for a moment that the increase in driving distance on the PGA Tour over the last 8-10 years is NOT, in any way, harmful to the game. Just consider it. Also, and this one may be tougher, consider that it might NOT be caused entirely by changes in equipment. Start with a question, and then probe the facts and look for an answer. Most people start with the answer they want, then sort through the information available and pick out that which supports their position.
It seems there is no shortage of people with all the answers. "It's the ball, stupid," or something similar; Geoff maintains a list of people who seem to argue that we will solve every alleged problem by returning driving distances to some magic number. Answers to broad questions like "what's wrong with championship golf" don't come from the off-handed comments of retired golf professionals made during informal interviews. You break broad questions down into smaller ones, until you get to ones you can answer with facts, then you work your way back up. When you peel the onion of "the distance problem" away in this fashion, you become more and more unsure about what is exactly going on. Most people don't have the interest, or patience, or nerdiness, maybe, to do this, but if you do, you might just find the issues aren't as simple as you always make them out to be.
I've expressed my opinion in the posts above. I don't need to write it again.
My main problem is with the unnecessary economic impact to courses and equipment.
My second problem comes with the professional game being made unwatchable (admittedly that's a matter of personal taste, but I'm not the only one that feels that way by a long shot).
The third problem I have is the disrespect shown to people like Jack Nicklaus who haven't lost their credibility just because they've gotten older. His point of view deserves respect and consideration, because he has seen how it was then and how it is now. The lack of respect people have for one another will be quite interesting to watch in the difficult days ahead when we're all grabbing for the last gallon of milk, but that's another topic for another time.
I'll admit to being plenty nerdy enough to have done a lot of study on this, and these are the conclusions I have drawn. I was done with this topic after the last debate, but then this issue with wedges came up. The USGA, instead of fixing what a lot of people with a lot of credibility think is the problem, decide the issue is with grooves, or lob wedges, or let's grow the rough so deep that one day a great player will end his career with one swing. They'll never think about reducing the number of clubs to 10 (I think this is a bad idea anyway) because the Wallys would have a fit.
There is a problem. The fact that the solution is simple doesn't make those who endorse it simpletons.
Guess people forget that Maxfli (XS Tour), Precept, Top Flite/Strata and Nike (may also have been others like Slazenger) had a solid core and/or solid core urethane covered multi-layer balls on tour before Titleist had the Pro-V1 on tour. Titleist is blamed for much of this due to the fact that they have the number one ball count on tour and have had that for years via their ball/glove/shoes deals.
It's funny to note that none of the other golf ball companies that currently have multi-layer urethane covered rockets in use on tour never catch any of the crap for the distance the balls are going yet they produce tour levels balls that are near or right at the USGA/R&A distance standards the same as Titliest.
It is easy for someone not involved in regulating an industry to play armchair quarterback and simply say "they screwed the pooch when they let the [ball/drivers/etc.] get out of hand." It's a hell of alot harder in a real world situation to decide the best course of action on a complicated matter.
I won't repeat my arguments, either, except to add one thing. Golf is a game. It's supposed to be fun. Fun is subjective of course, but one basic thrill that can't be denied in ball/stick games is that it's fun to give the ball a wallop. Anything they can do to enhance this part of the game for the masses who play it is as important, if not much more important, than anything relevant to a group of touring professionals or the conduct of national championships. The game is still plenty hard. And it's a good thing to revisit golf courses and give them facelifts every now and then. Same as it ever was.