Opinion & Analysis

What factors are most important in Strokes Gained Putting?

Published

9 years ago

Feb 10, 2015

As a golf statistician, I’m often asked what statistics golfers can keep to track their skills on the golf course.

For the tour players I work with, it’s easy. The PGA Tour uses a laser-measuring system called “Shot Tracker” that gives me the raw data I need to help them with their game. For amateurs, it’s much more difficult. They don’t have Shot Tracker, and many golfers who create their own metrics find that it can be a time-consuming process riddled with inaccuracies.

I am constantly looking to create new types of scoring games that are based on sound statistical information. For instance, there was a fad of people using the total distance of putts made metric. The idea was this — the longer the distance of total putts a player made, the better they putted. It does not consider, however, the golfer who putts poorly and happens to make a 60-footer. Nor does it consider the golfer who putts well and leaves himself first putts that are shorter in distance.

I started to look at some other metrics that I thought would be less cumbersome to record when it came to putting. I ran this against the past history of Strokes Gained Putting on Tour and found some interesting results.

When using putting distance metrics, the average length of all two-putts has the strongest correlation to Strokes Gained Putting on Tour.

For instance, if Brandt Snedeker two putts from 30 feet, it is recorded as a two putt from 30 feet. So, if he gets on the next hole and two putts from 50 feet, then he has an average of two putting from 40 feet.

This finding surprised me. I would have thought that the average length of a one-putt or the average length of a three-putt would have had a larger correlation to Strokes Gained Putting.

In fact, here are the mathematical correlations over the years since Strokes Gained Putting has been used by the PGA Tour:

For those who don’t understand what the numbers mean, it is based on a mathematical formula used to tell the strength of a relationship between two variables. The correlation number ranges from +1 to -1. The closer the number is to +1, the stronger the direct relationship is between the two variables.

Let’s say I own a store and I want to see the relationship between lemonade sold and temperature. After I record the data, I find the correlation to be +0.9. That means that as the temperature increases so does the likelihood that I will sell more lemonade. A number closer to 0 means that there is no real relationship, and a number closer to -1 indicates a stronger, indirect relationship.

Say I owned the same store and wanted to look at hot soup sold and temperature. I may get a correlation of -0.85, which means that as the temperature falls it would be likely that I would sell more soup. But if I look at the correlation between temperature and bread sold and come up with a correlation of +0.003, then that shows that temperature has no real impact on how many loafs of bread will be sold.

The reason why I bring up these correlations is that we see that after the two-putt distance correlations, the one-putt distance correlations are right behind. There is a significant decline, however, in the correlation between three-putt distances and Strokes Gained Putting.

My conclusion as to why the two-putting distance metrics have a stronger correlation is that it is simply too difficult to putt great from course to course. I label putting “great” any time a Tour player averages +1 or more strokes gained per round for a tournament. Even the best putters on Tour tend to only putt great in roughly 30-to-40 percent of their events.

These were three of the best putters in 2014 and they putted great in 33-to-40 percent of their events.

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 12.08.47 PM

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 12.08.57 PM

By looking at the graphs, we can see that great putting tends to occur at roughly the same time. Aaron Baddeley hit a stretch of great putting from The McGladreys through Riviera, as he putted great in 4 of those 6 events (notice the tall red bars, which indicate strokes gained on the field).

Freddie Jacobson hit his hot streak by putting great in 6 out of 8 events from Pebble Beach to the Zurich Classic. And Greg Chalmers started the year on fire by putting great in four events in a from The McGladreys to TPC Scottsdale.

Great putters also tend to cool off in streaks, however. They usually tend to putt better than the average (better than 0 strokes gained), but they can no longer rely on great putting for them to do well in a tournament. And that is where I believe why the average length of a player’s two-putts correlates strongest to Strokes Gained Putting.

But, I didn’t want to stop there. I wanted to look at a combination of metrics to help decide if there is more than one way to correlate to Strokes Gained Putting. And what I found was that if you combine the length of the average two putt along with the length of the average birdie putt made, you get the strongest correlation to Strokes Gained Putting in the end.

Let’s remember how Strokes Gained Putting is designed. If the field makes 40 percent of their putts from 10 feet, that will equate to roughly 1.6 strokes to the hole from 10 feet. If a player one-putts from 10 feet, then they are determined to have gained +0.6 strokes on the field. If they two-putt from 10 feet, then they have lost -0.4 strokes to the field.

The reason why birdie putts contribute to Strokes Gained Putting more is that they are by and large more difficult for players to make. In fact, only two PGA Tour players had a higher make percentage of birdie putts than par putts from 5-to-15 feet: Kevin Streelman and Luke Donald.

Anytime the make percentage goes down, there is more potential for a player to gain more strokes. If the make percentage from 10 feet went down to 20 percent and that roughly equates to 1.8 strokes from 10 feet, a player that makes the 10-foot putt now gains 0.8 strokes on the field.

Essentially, what this tells me is that even the best putters are not going to be able to take great putting from course to course, so they need to be two-putting when putts are not dropping for them. And when you combine the length of the two-putts along with the length of birdie putts made, it provides a measurement of ability to avoid three-putts and ability to make putts.

The average Tour player’s two-putt distance is roughly 22.5 feet, and their average birdie putt make distance is 10.5 feet. That comes to a combined 33 feet. I also wanted to test this with another metric that is fairly easy to measure: Greens in Regulation (GIR).

When combining GIR with the “Average All Two-Putts Distance” and the “Average Birdie Make Putt Distance,” it has an incredibly strong correlation to Adjusted Scoring Average.

Normally, I’m not a big fan of the greens in regulation metric due to its flaws and ambiguous nature, but considering that it is an easy metric to calculate and the correlation between greens hit and the two-putt and one-putt average distance is so high, I think it is a helpful way for a player to measure their skills.

And that’s how I came up with the “98 Score.”

Here are the Tour averages for each of the metrics:

Average All 2-Putts Distance: 22.5 feet
Average Birdie Putts Made Distance: 10.5 feet
Average Greens In Regulation: 65 percent

22.5 + 10.5 + 65 = 98

If you can score 98 or better, than you are playing quite well. If not, keep trying to improve your score so you can get the ball on the green more often and putt better when you’re on the greens.

Your Reaction?

LIKE69
LEGIT10
WOW8
LOL2
IDHT1
FLOP11
OB2
SHANK7

Related Topics:

Up Next

What we talked about at Adams Golf

Don't Miss

Doesn’t Tiger deserve better than butt jokes?

Rich Hunt

Richie Hunt is a statistician whose clients include PGA Tour players, their caddies and instructors in order to more accurately assess their games. He is also the author of the recently published e-book, 2018 Pro Golf Synopsis; the Moneyball Approach to the Game of Golf. He can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @Richie3Jack. GolfWRX Writer of the Month: March 2014 Purchase 2017 Pro Golf Synopsis E-book for $10

16 Comments

Trae

Feb 12, 2015 at 7:44 pm

This was a good read, and very interesting. And it brings back memories of stats class, and also me spending countless hours entering in data from the pga tour just to see relationships between variables and trying to create a number of statistical models to predict, etc. I’m never doing that again! Never got to a point where I could really apply it to my own game in a really effective way though. Always would end up getting caught up in trying to figure out why someone was an outlier, then later on lost interest in stats altogether. It’s interesting stuff but I think it can be very misleading in some cases. It can be tricky. Anyways, I enjoyed this article and I’m looking forward to your next one. Thanks.

Reply Report comment
Jeff Watson

Feb 11, 2015 at 4:32 pm

Rich,

I like it. I already pace off my putts and number of putts for a stats program I subscribe to. Any idea what the “Score” would be based on handicap?

Jeff

Reply Report comment
david

Feb 11, 2015 at 12:54 pm

Hi Ritch, I had to drop out of gread 11 math, so unfortunately my brain is still bleeding after reading your article. I know the tour putting stats on makeability is, from what I believe, from 6 feet to about 50%. I was a bit under this, so I worked hard on my putting last summer and lowered my cap from aprox 5 to 3.7. I know without keeping stats that not enough of my greenside chips get to inside 4 feet, so that is my focus this summer to knock off another 2 points. But I did find the article interesting, but not necessarily relevant to most amateurs, whatever the index.

Reply Report comment
Dick Kusleika

Feb 11, 2015 at 11:13 am

I step off every first putt. I don’t know how people putt without stepping it off. They just guess or try to feel it, I suppose.

I think the negative correlation is “inverse relationship”, not “indirect relationship”.

Reply Report comment
Hudson

Feb 10, 2015 at 2:21 pm

I calculate the strokes gained (lost in my case, lol) and measure one pace (3 feet) to get the distance on the green from the pin. It takes a few seconds and it’s dead easy.

I am going full speed to track/calculate my strokes gained now and I am explaining it there:

http://golf-made-in-us.blogspot.com/2014/04/golf-stats-revolution-gained-strokes.html

I consequently discovered that I was losing 6 strokes between 125 and 200 yards (on a 14 hcp) on average in 2014 and will work on that !

Reply Report comment
- Rich Hunt
  
  Feb 10, 2015 at 2:35 pm
  
  Hudson, I’ve enjoyed your work. The only issue I have with using strokes gained with putting is that the make %’s at a local course are likely different then at a Tour level course, even for Tour players. As we’ve seen time and time again, slower greens mean lower make %’s for players across the board. I’ve not only seen it at Tour courses that I record the data for, but David Orr did a study on this and found the same thing as well. IMO, it is probably best to use strokes gained in comparing it to your own performance over time and see how well you improve or regress.
  
  Reply Report comment
  - HIGHfader
    
    Feb 10, 2015 at 4:49 pm
    
    Richie, do you know where I can find that David Orr studdy?
    
    Reply Report comment
    - Richie Hunt
      
      Feb 10, 2015 at 8:13 pm
      
      I don’t believe David has made it public. But, if you asked him that is what he would tell you. IIRC, they measured roughly 700 golfers and were on greens from the local muni to Pinehurst.
      
      Reply Report comment
jeff

Feb 10, 2015 at 1:23 pm

Rich, great writeup, thanks. But without data from our peers (“the field”), how is this different from simply looking at your actual score for the round as a basis for judging our “getting better”? What I mean is, what will achieving a 98 in this fashion tell us about our game that the score cannot? If the result of putting better (fewer putts per round) is a better overall score, isn’t that pretty much the same thing? Without a field to compare against, how much would we actually get out of this? Thanks again!

Reply Report comment
- Rich Hunt
  
  Feb 10, 2015 at 2:18 pm
  
  Jeff,
  
  Very good point. I think we can use the 98 Score to measure how well we are striking the ball and putting. So the other factors that would cause a discrepancy in 98 Score versus Actual Score would be short game shots around the green, penalty shots and general strategy. So if the score is better than 98, but a player shoots 75, then they may have struggled with short game or hit a shot OB or in the drink.
  
  In my next article I will go into simple metrics I keep for my rounds that will better help determine the strengths and weaknesses of our game.
  
  Reply Report comment
myron miller

Feb 10, 2015 at 12:40 pm

I’m a little sceptical of your usage of the statistical correlation coefficient. Famous statistical anolmaly: Amount of ice cream eaten versus number of polio cases was fantastically high (close to .9 or something like that). Ergo if you eat a lot of Ice cream your chances of polio increased. Just because there’s a correlation doesn’t mean that there is necessarily a relationship. Usually but not necessarily. Other factors could be involved that sway the correlation coefficient.

For the amateur to actually pace off every putt regardless does help but slows down the game a bit increasing the time for the round. Not a productive way to help the overall pace of play but it does help the individual golfer (assuming his paces are moderately accurate – which is sometimes questionable). So which is more important, pace of play or helping the individual in play? At which time?

Reply Report comment
- Rich Hunt
  
  Feb 10, 2015 at 2:14 pm
  
  Correlation does not imply causality (unless there is a correlation of a perfect +1 or -1). The issue is that people tend to take that the wrong way as correlation is trying to define the symmetry of a relationship.
  
  The problem with the ice cream to polio correlation is that usually those types of analysis are done over a very short period of time so the sample size is not large enough. The other issue is that the variables (polio and ice cream consumption) have virtually nothing to do with each other.
  
  Correlation is not about certainty, it’s about probability. The real issue with the correlations I used is that they are not ‘strong correlations’ (+0.5 or better), so the 1:1 relationship is not exactly a confident one. But, that could be due to a myriad of factors like a golfer’s ballstriking.
  
  However, those correlations were fairly consistent over the seasons and on a comparative basis I think it indicates that all 2-putts length does give a better indication of how a player is putting than say 3-putt length. And given that when we combine all 2-putts and birdie putts lengths does have a strong correlation, it’s a good way to measure our true putting prowess.
  
  Lastly, the main point of the article was to more accurately measure our own putting prowess and do it without the measuring process being too cumbersome and time consuming. Obviously, we don’t know how well we are putting versus other golfers. But we can measure our own improvement over time with a large enough sample by seeing how well we improve compared to our performance in other rounds of golf.
  
  Reply Report comment
- Rich Hunt
  
  Feb 10, 2015 at 2:28 pm
  
  Myron,
  
  Correlation does not imply causality (unless the correlation is +1 or -1). However, many people don’t quite understand that phrase as used in the polio to ice cream consumption case.
  
  Correlation is designed to give a confidence level of the symmetrical relationship between 2 variables. For instance, we may see a correlation between ball speed and distance a ball travels of +0.9. That doesn’t consider launch angle, spin rate, landing angle of the ball, etc. But we have a high degree of confidence that ball speed will be a large determining factor in the distance the ball traveled.
  
  The problem with using the polio to ice cream consumption argument (and the countless other arguments) is that:
  
  1) typically the sample sizes are incredibly small so the data can be easily skewed.
  
  2) the variables have virtually nothing to do with each other.
  
  I feel the sample size of length of putt to putts gained is more than sufficient as it took place over several seasons with roughly 180 golfers per season. I also feel that the variables (length of a putt versus putts gained) are closely tied together.
  
  If there is a an issue with using the correlations is that none of these correlations were ‘strong’ (+0.5 or better). However, if you add all 2-putt length and birdie putt lengths, the correlation is strong.
  
  So, why is the correlation not at a perfect +1?
  
  Likely due to ballstriking. If a player hits a birdie putt to 4-feet and make the birdie putt, there’s not much they can do about it rather than the player that misses their 4-foot birdie putts, but makes a 20-footer. The same goes for 2-putting.
  
  Still, the main purpose of the article was to more easily determine how well you are putting and trying to improve upon your own performance. I think if one records this data over time they can use it to better gauge how well they have putted over a certain amount of time.
  
  Reply Report comment
Rob Rashell

Feb 10, 2015 at 11:30 am

Rich,

This stuff is fantastic, will be sharing with the players I work with.

Rob

Reply Report comment
Rich Hunt

Feb 10, 2015 at 10:42 am

Steven,

I would just recommend pacing off the initial putt. I personally pace off all of my putts except for putts inside 5-feet since I know how long they are by eye-balling it.

It doesn’t have to be a perfect measurement because the idea is to improve your score so you can improve your putting. For instance, if you average 30-feet on your 2-putts by pacing it off and in reality it is 32 feet, that’s not as important as actually improving your 2-putt average the next time you play.

Reply Report comment
steven

Feb 10, 2015 at 10:24 am

rich, how would you recommend us amateurs determine the distance of our 2 putt distances. As well our birdie putt distances. Of course theres no guarantee i make a birdie in a round of golf. but i sure as heck attempt and make a lot of 2 putts. without the use of a simulator, ill simply be estimating the distance i am away from the hole. thus limiting the reliability of an amateurs usage of your ’98’ theory. any tips? as the concept seems very well thought out, but the execution for an average player is really implausible. thanks.

Reply Report comment

Cancel reply

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

19th Hole

Vincenzi’s 2024 Zurich Classic of New Orleans betting preview

Published

21 hours ago

Apr 22, 2024

Matt Vincenzi

The PGA TOUR heads to New Orleans to play the 2023 Zurich Classic of New Orleans. In a welcome change from the usual stroke play, the Zurich Classic is a team event. On Thursday and Saturday, the teams play best ball, and on Friday and Sunday the teams play alternate shot.

TPC Louisiana is a par 72 that measures 7,425 yards. The course features some short par 4s and plenty of water and bunkers, which makes for a lot of exciting risk/reward scenarios for competitors. Pete Dye designed the course in 2004 specifically for the Zurich Classic, although the event didn’t make its debut until 2007 because of Hurricane Katrina.

Coming off of the Masters and a signature event in consecutive weeks, the field this week is a step down, and understandably so. Many of the world’s top players will be using this time to rest after a busy stretch.

However, there are some interesting teams this season with some stars making surprise appearances in the team event. Some notable teams include Patrick Cantlay and Xander Schauffele, Rory McIlroy and Shane Lowry, Collin Morikawa and Kurt Kitayama, Will Zalatoris and Sahith Theegala as well as a few Canadian teams, Nick Taylor and Adam Hadwin and Taylor Pendrith and Corey Conners.

Past Winners at TPC Louisiana

2023: Riley/Hardy (-30)
2022: Cantlay/Schauffele (-29)
2021: Leishman/Smith (-20)
2019: Palmer/Rahm (-26)
2018: Horschel/Piercy (-22)
2017: Blixt/Smith (-27)

2024 Zurich Classic of New Orleans Picks

Tom Hoge/Maverick McNealy +2500 (DraftKings)

Tom Hoge is coming off of a solid T18 finish at the RBC Heritage and finished T13 at last year’s Zurich Classic alongside Harris English.

This season, Hoge is having one of his best years on Tour in terms of Strokes Gained: Approach. In his last 24 rounds, the only player to top him on the category is Scottie Scheffler. Hoge has been solid on Pete Dye designs, ranking 28th in the field over his past 36 rounds.

McNealy is also having a solid season. He’s finished T6 at the Waste Management Phoenix Open and T9 at the PLAYERS Championship. He recently started working with world renowned swing coach, Butch Harmon, and its seemingly paid dividends in 2024.

Keith Mitchell/Joel Dahmen +4000 (DraftKings)

Keith Mitchell is having a fantastic season, finishing in the top-20 of five of his past seven starts on Tour. Most recently, Mitchell finished T14 at the Valero Texas Open and gained a whopping 6.0 strokes off the tee. He finished 6th at last year’s Zurich Classic.

Joel Dahmen is having a resurgent year and has been dialed in with his irons. He also has a T11 finish at the PLAYERS Championship at TPC Sawgrass which is another Pete Dye track. With Mitchell’s length and Dahmen’s ability to put it close with his short irons, the Mitchell/Dahmen combination will be dangerous this week.

Taylor Moore/Matt NeSmith +6500 (DraftKings)

Taylor Moore has quickly developed into one of the more consistent players on Tour. He’s finished in the top-20 in three of his past four starts, including a very impressive showing at The Masters, finishing T20. He’s also finished T4 at this event in consecutive seasons alongside Matt NeSmith.

NeSmith isn’t having a great 2024, but has seemed to elevate his game in this format. He finished T26 at Pete Dye’s TPC Sawgrass, which gives the 30-year-old something to build off of. NeSmith is also a great putter on Bermudagrass, which could help elevate Moore’s ball striking prowess.

Your Reaction?

LIKE6
LEGIT1
WOW1
LOL0
IDHT0
FLOP2
OB1
SHANK1

19th Hole

Vincenzi’s 2024 LIV Adelaide betting preview: Cam Smith ready for big week down under

Published

21 hours ago

Apr 22, 2024

Matt Vincenzi

After having four of the top twelve players on the leaderboard at The Masters, LIV Golf is set for their fifth event of the season: LIV Adelaide.

For both LIV fans and golf fans in Australia, LIV Adelaide is one of the most anticipated events of the year. With 35,000 people expected to attend each day of the tournament, the Grange Golf Club will be crawling with fans who are passionate about the sport of golf. The 12th hole, better known as “the watering hole”, is sure to have the rowdiest of the fans cheering after a long day of drinking some Leishman Lager.

The Grange Golf Club is a par-72 that measures 6,946 yards. The course features minimal resistance, as golfers went extremely low last season. In 2023, Talor Gooch shot consecutive rounds of 62 on Thursday and Friday, giving himself a gigantic cushion heading into championship Sunday. Things got tight for a while, but in the end, the Oklahoma State product was able to hold off The Crushers’ Anirban Lahiri for a three-shot victory.

The Four Aces won the team competition with the Range Goats finishing second.

*All Images Courtesy of LIV Golf*

Past Winners at LIV Adelaide

2023: Talor Gooch (-19)

Stat Leaders Through LIV Miami

Green in Regulation

Richard Bland
Jon Rahm
Paul Casey

Fairways Hit

Abraham Ancer
Graeme McDowell
Henrik Stenson

Driving Distance

Bryson DeChambeau
Joaquin Niemann
Dean Burmester

Putting

Cameron Smith
Louis Oosthuizen
Matt Jones

2024 LIV Adelaide Picks

Cameron Smith +1400 (DraftKings)

When I pulled up the odds for LIV Adelaide, I was more than a little surprised to see multiple golfers listed ahead of Cameron Smith on the betting board. A few starts ago, Cam finished runner-up at LIV Hong Kong, which is a golf course that absolutely suits his eye. Augusta National in another course that Smith could roll out of bed and finish in the top-ten at, and he did so two weeks ago at The Masters, finishing T6.

At Augusta, he gained strokes on the field on approach, off the tee (slightly), and of course, around the green and putting. Smith able to get in the mix at a major championship despite coming into the week feeling under the weather tells me that his game is once again rounding into form.

The Grange Golf Club is another course that undoubtedly suits the Australian. Smith is obviously incredibly comfortable playing in front of the Aussie faithful and has won three Australian PGA Championship’s. The course is very short and will allow Smith to play conservative off the tee, mitigating his most glaring weakness. With birdies available all over the golf course, there’s a chance the event turns into a putting contest, and there’s no one on the planet I’d rather have in one of those than Cam Smith.

Louis Oosthuizen +2200 (DraftKings)

Louis Oosthuizen has simply been one of the best players on LIV in the 2024 seas0n. The South African has finished in the top-10 on the LIV leaderboard in three of his five starts, with his best coming in Jeddah, where he finished T2. Perhaps more impressively, Oosthuizen finished T7 at LIV Miami, which took place at Doral’s “Blue Monster”, an absolutely massive golf course. Given that Louis is on the shorter side in terms of distance off the tee, his ability to play well in Miami shows how dialed he is with the irons this season.

In addition to the LIV finishes, Oosthuizen won back-to-back starts on the DP World Tour in December at the Alfred Dunhill Championship and the Mauritus Open. He also finished runner-up at the end of February in the International Series Oman. The 41-year-old has been one of the most consistent performers of 2024, regardless of tour.

For the season, Louis ranks 4th on LIV in birdies made, T9 in fairways hit and first in putting. He ranks 32nd in driving distance, but that won’t be an issue at this short course. Last season, he finished T11 at the event, but was in decent position going into the final round but fell back after shooting 70 while the rest of the field went low. This season, Oosthuizen comes into the event in peak form, and the course should be a perfect fit for his smooth swing and hot putter this week.

Your Reaction?

LIKE10
LEGIT2
WOW0
LOL1
IDHT0
FLOP1
OB1
SHANK1

Opinion & Analysis

The Wedge Guy: What really makes a wedge work? Part 1

Published

5 days ago

Apr 18, 2024

Terry Koehler

Of all the clubs in our bags, wedges are almost always the simplest in construction and, therefore, the easiest to analyze what might make one work differently from another if you know what to look for.

Wedges are a lot less mysterious than drivers, of course, as the major brands are working with a lot of “pixie dust” inside these modern marvels. That’s carrying over more to irons now, with so many new models featuring internal multi-material technologies, and almost all of them having a “badge” or insert in the back to allow more complex graphics while hiding the actual distribution of mass.

But when it comes to wedges, most on the market today are still single pieces of molded steel, either cast or forged into that shape. So, if you look closely at where the mass is distributed, it’s pretty clear how that wedge is going to perform.

To start, because of their wider soles, the majority of the mass of almost any wedge is along the bottom third of the clubhead. So, the best wedge shots are always those hit between the 2nd and 5th grooves so that more mass is directly behind that impact. Elite tour professionals practice incessantly to learn to do that consistently, wearing out a spot about the size of a penny right there. If impact moves higher than that, the face is dramatically thinner, so smash factor is compromised significantly, which reduces the overall distance the ball will fly.

Every one of us, tour players included, knows that maddening shot that we feel a bit high on the face and it doesn’t go anywhere, it’s not your fault.

If your wedges show a wear pattern the size of a silver dollar, and centered above the 3rd or 4th groove, you are not getting anywhere near the same performance from shot to shot. Robot testing proves impact even two to three grooves higher in the face can cause distance loss of up to 35 to 55 feet with modern ‘tour design’ wedges.

In addition, as impact moves above the center of mass, the golf club principle of gear effect causes the ball to fly higher with less spin. Think of modern drivers for a minute. The “holy grail” of driving is high launch and low spin, and the driver engineers are pulling out all stops to get the mass as low in the clubhead as possible to optimize this combination.

Where is all the mass in your wedges? Low. So, disregarding the higher lofts, wedges “want” to launch the ball high with low spin – exactly the opposite of what good wedge play requires penetrating ball flight with high spin.

While almost all major brand wedges have begun putting a tiny bit more thickness in the top portion of the clubhead, conventional and modern ‘tour design’ wedges perform pretty much like they always have. Elite players learn to hit those crisp, spinny penetrating wedge shots by spending lots of practice time learning to consistently make contact low in the face.

So, what about grooves and face texture?

Grooves on any club can only do so much, and no one has any material advantage here. The USGA tightly defines what we manufacturers can do with grooves and face texture, and modern manufacturing techniques allow all of us to push those limits ever closer. And we all do. End of story.

Then there’s the topic of bounce and grinds, the most complex and confusing part of the wedge formula. Many top brands offer a complex array of sole configurations, all of them admittedly specialized to a particular kind of lie or turf conditions, and/or a particular divot pattern.

But if you don’t play the same turf all the time, and make the same size divot on every swing, how would you ever figure this out?

The only way is to take any wedge you are considering and play it a few rounds, hitting all the shots you face and observing the results. There’s simply no other way.

So, hopefully this will inspire a lively conversation in our comments section, and I’ll chime in to answer any questions you might have.

And next week, I’ll dive into the rest of the wedge formula. Yes, shafts, grips and specifications are essential, too.

Your Reaction?