Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

The Science of Mud Balls (and predicting their flight)



Recently, I had a few people ask whether we have done any research at Ping on the effects of mud on a golf ball, or “mud balls.” It turns out that one of our engineers had encountered a significant amount of mud on the right side of his ball in a tournament earlier this year. Unsure what the effect on ball flight would be, he aimed for the middle of the green and watched his ball draw into the rough, well left of the green. This spurred a debate as to whether the effect of mud on ball flight could be consistently predicted.

We did some theoretical analysis, which showed that mud on the right side of the ball should almost always cause the resultant ball flight to curve to the left. The main reason is aerodynamics – a golf ball with no dimples on the right would also curve to the left. The question is – with mud, is this effect measurable and repeatable?

To test our hypothesis we set up a G30 4-iron on our Ping Man robot and set the swing characteristics to a faster swing-speed player. The club speed prior to impact was set to 95 mph, leading to center hits carrying a little over 220 yards with a Titleist Pro V1x ball. We then teed up a number of balls with mud caked on different areas. Some had mud covering the entire surface of the ball, while others had mud applied to one area – either the front, back, top, bottom, left or right side of the ball.

We used a lot of mud to try to maximize the effect and get the most measurable results. However, our high-speed video analysis of impact showed that much of the mud fell off the ball immediately, regardless of how much mud we applied.

A short statistics lesson is needed to interpret the results. Ping Man is extremely consistent and so usually no more than three shots are needed in any configuration to establish a reliable set of data. In our bar charts, the average of the three shots is the bar itself, while the “error bars” on either side of the bar show what we call a 95 percent confidence interval. This means we are 95 percent confident that if we took 1,000 or even 1 million shots on Ping Man, the average would fall in this interval.

The more shots you take, and the more repeatable the data, the smaller the error bars are. If you look at 2 bars where the error bars overlap, this means there is no statistically significant difference and a correct statement is that the averages are “broadly the same.” If there is a clear gap between error bars, the statistical conclusion is that there is almost certainly a real difference in the averages.

Does mud on the right of the ball cause it to bend consistently in one direction?


The average offline distance for a clean ball, a ball covered in mud, and balls with mud on the left or right.

The answer is categorically yes. Figure 1 shows that balls with mud on the right ended up around 25 yards left of the target on average – a statistically significant result. Likewise, with mud on the left, the ball ended up around 25 yards right of the target. With mud all over, the balls ended up statistically no different to the clean balls. You can see that the error bars are much wider for all of the mud balls than the clean balls. The mud is making the ball flight less consistent, which is no surprise. However, the take home message is that if you find your ball on the fairway with mud on the right side, aim right of your target and you can be confident that the ball will curve a long way to the left. This was tested by one of our engineers in competition not long after we conducted the test and he was able to aim right with confidence and find the middle of the green.

Does mud on the ball cause it to fly shorter?


Figure 2: Average carry distance for a range of different mud conditions when compared with a clean ball.

Figure 2 shows the carry distance of all the configurations we tested. There was a significant drop in distance for all of the mud balls, but the most dramatic drop by far occurred when mud interfered with the club-ball interaction. With mud on the back or bottom of the ball, the club impacts mud before the ball and — no surprise — mud is not great for energy transfer. Even when mud does not get in the way of the club, ball speed is lower, which is a result of some of the energy in the club head going toward accelerating mud rather than the ball. The message here is: Take an extra club if there is a lot of mud on the ball, maybe even a couple of extra clubs. Our test shows the extreme case because we used a lot of mud, but the effect will exist whenever there is an impediment like mud on the ball.

This kind of little experiment reminds me how fortunate I am to work in an engineering department where if we have a question based on observations during a round, we have all the tools at our disposal to answer that question in a systematic and reliable way. I hope this helps shed a little light on what you can do if you’re unfortunate enough to find mud on your ball during a round.

Your Reaction?
  • 832
  • LEGIT95
  • WOW68
  • LOL8
  • IDHT8
  • FLOP9
  • OB7
  • SHANK14

Paul is the Vice President of Engineering at Ping, coordinating a department responsible for club design, development, innovation and testing. He moved there in 2005 after completing a PhD studying Solar Flares in the Mathematics Department at St Andrews University, Scotland. He has spent most of his time with Ping in the research department working on the physics of ball flight, the club-ball impact and many other aspects of golf science. Some of his projects at Ping include the nFlight fitting software, iPing, Turbulators and TR face technology. The idea behind these articles is to explain a bit about popular scientific topics in golf in a way that is accessible to most. Hopefully that will be easier than it sounds.



  1. Pingback: 101 Days Until April - The Fried Egg

  2. Graham

    Apr 1, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Intriguing stuff. One question I’d like to ask is “why doesn’t mud detach instantly once a ball is struck?” If I want to get mud off my shoes I bang them together, and I’d imagine the energy imparted to a golf ball on being struck is of a larger order.

  3. Pingback: 7 Ways to Play Better Golf in the Rain | The DIY Golfer

  4. Pingback: OT golfers

  5. Pingback: The Science of Mud Balls | Honourable Society of Golf Fanatics

  6. Max

    Dec 17, 2015 at 8:37 pm

    This is good info to know but I, personally, avoid this problem by playing winter rules all year.

  7. Pingback: A “Muddy” Lesson | World Junior Golf

  8. Steve Thomas

    Dec 17, 2015 at 2:53 pm

    This is an excellent article. I would like to know what happens to a ball after you have hit a cart path. Most of the time I just buff them out using the strap on my golf cart, kind of like sandpaper, but on some occasions when the ball hits an asphalt cart path, then it’s really scuffed up too bad to use and I just put those balls in my shag bag.

  9. birdeez

    Dec 17, 2015 at 10:02 am

    i’d love to ask those labeling this as shank why they do so….tough to please or just complete jerks. this type of article is what makes wrx unique and the number one site in golf. i’m sure you prefer golf digest articles on how to cure your slice for the umpteenth time.

  10. Pingback: The Science of mud balls and predicting their flight | Welcome to Raflewski Golf!

  11. viking62

    Dec 16, 2015 at 6:28 pm

    so if there is mud on the right side of the ball – your average right handed golfer should hit the ball much straighter. Maybe someone should make a ball that acts like a ball with mud on the right hand side.

    • Da

      Dec 17, 2015 at 2:11 am

      And how would you use that in the fairway or rough? You would only be able to use it off the tee. And how would that affect roll on the green, you thunk?

      What a dumbazz

    • Scooter McGavin

      Dec 17, 2015 at 6:52 am

      They do make those. They’re called Polara golf balls and have dimple patterns that make them fly straight. Non-conforming, though.

  12. Matthew Bacon

    Dec 16, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    I liked the article and echo the sentiments about wondering how scuffs affect the flight

    • Da

      Dec 17, 2015 at 2:12 am

      Just think “range balls” and you’ll get the idea

  13. Jack Nash

    Dec 16, 2015 at 5:53 pm

    What’s a mud ball? When you go and identify your ball you inadvertently brush off the blob when you place it back down. ????

  14. Big t off 2

    Dec 16, 2015 at 5:07 pm

    Think Jordan should learn how to read first before putting his big golf shoe in it you silly boy!
    Great advice for us novice golfers @ this time of year…

  15. 8thehardway

    Dec 16, 2015 at 4:11 pm

    A Hall of Fame article that should be pinned somewhere for permanent exposure.

  16. Shank you very much

    Dec 16, 2015 at 3:09 pm

    After reading this and seeing 3 “shanks” with no comments I have to believe that there are people out there that just shank these articles to be a douche. Don’t understand why someone wouldn’t just clean the mud off the ball before playing a shot? Can’t swing fast enough to notice the difference? Slice so bad that a watermelon sized clump of mud on the ball doesn’t make a difference?

    • jc

      Dec 16, 2015 at 4:16 pm

      duh, because you can’t clean the ball if it is not on the green? read a rules book.

      • JZ

        Dec 16, 2015 at 4:35 pm

        Um, I think that was Shank’s point. 3 people shanked the article with no comment. His 3 reasons were why they could possibly do this – thereby implying one of those 3 didn’t know the rule and just assumed you’d clean the ball. And, you’re assessment isn’t completely accurate as there are times you can clean your ball. Lift, clean and place, anyone? Before you shank on someone, maybe you should take the time to try to understand what they said.

    • Jeff*

      Dec 17, 2015 at 4:31 pm

      Well, the rules of golf. Some folks are cursed by integrity.

  17. Steven

    Dec 16, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    Great article. I really liked seeing the statistics.

  18. Forsbrand

    Dec 16, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    A story from Phil Mickelsons College golf days – Phil is playing a guy called Manny Zerman, Phil calls Manny over asks for relief as his ball has muck on the side of it. Manny says sorry no you’ll have to play it as it is. Phil says ok no problem hits an exaggerated in to out swing and hooks the ball 25 yards through the air and holes it for an eagle. Zermans coach walking with the match calls manny over and tells him next time Phil Mickelson asks for relief you give it to him ok?!

  19. Jordan

    Dec 16, 2015 at 2:29 pm

    I love that you tried to use REAL statistics as empirical evidence but creating a 95% confidence interval off of 3 swings is pretty dumb. Why not just take the generally accepted 30 observations so you can have realistic statistical inference.

    • Paul Wood

      Dec 17, 2015 at 7:53 pm

      Jordan – you make a fair point. 3 swings in general is not very many. To be honest, if I was doing this test for a research paper I’d certainly hit more balls, and I’d also want to repeat with more different swings and on different days, but this was really to satisfy some curiosity at our end. The statistics are real though. The confidence interval takes into account the number of swings and so it’s inherently bigger for 3 swings than 5 or 10 or 30. Part of what makes PING Man valuable is that he is so consistent we can hit 3 shots and see statistical significance in most tests. This particular test played to his strength extremely well. We just set up one swing and all we changed was the ball.

      • Jordan

        Dec 17, 2015 at 7:59 pm

        Very good. Thanks for the reply! Forgot about the precision of “Ping Man”. I’d love to see you guys further pursue this with a bigger sample so we maybe bring that confidence interval into a ultra small range

      • Stretch

        Dec 18, 2015 at 11:57 am

        I would like to see the test add off center hits to see if the ball reacts in a more extreme way.

  20. Max

    Dec 16, 2015 at 2:27 pm

    Awesome. As a lifetime golfer and an engineer, I can say this is one of the best pieces I’ve ever seen on here. Thank you, Paul.

  21. ParHunter

    Dec 16, 2015 at 12:49 pm

    Now that is an article that is relevant for the normal golfer at this time of the year! Thank you.

  22. Double Mocha Man

    Dec 16, 2015 at 12:32 pm

    I always have mud on the back of the ball, thus I smoosh it against the ball at impact and get “knuckleballs”.

  23. Chuck

    Dec 16, 2015 at 12:31 pm

    This is so cool. I always wonder, how much tour players read GolfWRX. I expect that about 500 of the best players in the world will all read this and talk about it on the range. And that every single caddy will have a discussion about it, with their boss or with other caddies.

    • JP

      Dec 17, 2015 at 9:31 pm

      Tour players already know what mud does to their golf balls, and how to play them. There are very few shots tour pros have not encountered or don’t know how to play….

  24. alexdub

    Dec 16, 2015 at 12:04 pm

    This is why I will always play Ping… Innovation and explanation through passion for the game.

  25. Mat

    Dec 16, 2015 at 11:52 am

    THIS is why we come here. Fantastic information! Here’s to lift-clean-replace being in effect…

  26. Ian

    Dec 16, 2015 at 11:35 am

    Needed to know this about a week ago – my course had a lot of rain and I had plenty of mud balls. I was just trying to find fairways so I could lift, clean and cheat.

  27. +2 man

    Dec 16, 2015 at 10:24 am

    Great analysis. I’ve always wondered about the “Ball will fly away from the mud” common advice, given the rotation of the ball in flight.

    Curious about the mud on the bottom causing such a significant distance loss compared to all the others that don’t directly interfere with contact. I wouldn’t have expected that.

    • Emb

      Dec 16, 2015 at 4:49 pm

      Since they’ve shown mud to cause to ball to curve in the opposite direction of where the mud is attached I would guess mud on the bottom reduces backspin so severely that the ball just fell out of the air very quickly and lost a ton of carry distance

  28. Progolfer

    Dec 16, 2015 at 10:09 am

    Fantastic article!

  29. Ben

    Dec 16, 2015 at 9:47 am

    Very interesting! Great to see statistical data on this. This is knowledge I can directly apply on the course. Thanks!

Leave a 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.

19th Hole

Vincenzi: Fortinet Championship First Round Leader picks



The PGA Tour begins its fall season with a trip to Wine Country as the world of golf patiently awaits the 2023 Ryder Cup which is just a few weeks away. Silverado is a course where plenty of players with varying skill sets can compete, but strong West Coast history tends to be a major factor.

In the past four editions of the Fortinet Championship, there have been six first-round leaders or co-leaders. Of the six, three have started their rounds in the morning wave, and three started in the afternoon. The leading scores have all been between 63 and 65.

As of now, the winds look to be very docile, with speeds of 4-7 MPH throughout the day. I don’t see either the AM or PM wave as having a major advantage.

2023 Fortinet Championship First-Round Leader Picks

Zac Blair +9000 (FanDuel)

First-Round Tee Time: 1.22 p.m PT

A big theme for me this week is targeting players who have had success at both Silverado and the West Coast in general. Blair finished 22nd here last year, and also finished 4th back in 2019. That year, he shot 66 in rounds two and three, showing his ability to go low on this track.

In 2022, Blair gained 3.8 strokes putting and in 2019, he gained 8.6. The 33-year-old seemingly has these greens figured out.

C.T. Pan +9000 (FanDuel)

First-Round Tee Time: 8.23 a.m PT

At the end of the 2023 season, C.T. Pan showed flashes of what made him a good player prior to his injury struggles early in the year. He finished 4th at the AT&T Byron Nelson in May, and 3rd at the RBC Canadian Open in June. He also finished 6th at Silverado back in 2021, gaining 4.5 strokes on approach and 6.6 strokes putting.

A few weeks off may have given Pan a chance to reset and focus on the upcoming fall swing, where I believe he’ll play some good golf.

Joel Dahmen +110000 (FanDuel)

First-Round Tee Time: 7:28 a.m PT

After becoming a well-known name in golf due to his affable presence in Netflix’ “Full Swing” documentary, Dahmen had what can only be considered a disappointment of a 2023 season. I believe he’s a better player than he showed last year and is a good candidate for a bounce back fall and 2024.

Dahmen finished in a tie for 10th at the Barracuda Championship in late July, and the course is similar in agronomy and location to what he’ll see this week in Napa. He has some strong history on the West Coast including top-ten finishes at Riviera (5th, 2020), Pebble Beach (6th, 2022), Sherwood (8th, 2020), TPC Summerlin (9th, 2019) and Torrey Pines (9th, 2019).

James Hahn +125000 (Caesars)

First-Round Tee Time: 1:55 p.m PT

James Hahn absolutely loves golf on the West Coast. He’s won at Riviera and has also shown some course form with a 9th place finish at Silverado back in 2020. That week, Hahn gained 4.7 strokes putting, demonstrating his comfort level on these POA putting surfaces.

He finished T6 at the Barracuda back in July, and there’s no doubt that a return to California will be welcome for the 41-year-old.

Peter Malnati +125000 (BetRivers)

First-Round Tee Time: 12.27 p.m PT 

Peter Malnati excels at putting on the West Coast. He ranks 3rd in the field in Strokes Gained: Putting on POA and has shown in the past he’s capable of going extremely low on any given round due to his ability to catch a hot putter.

His course history isn’t spectacular, but he’s played well enough at Silverado. In his past seven trips to the course, he’s finished in the top-35 four times.

Harry Higgs +150000 (BetRivers)

First-Round Tee Time: 1.55 p.m PT

In what is seemingly becoming a theme in this week’s First-Round Leader column, Harry Higgs is a player that really fell out of form in 2023, but a reset and a trip to a course he’s had success at in the past may spark a resurgence.

Higgs finished 2nd at Silverado in 2020 and wasn’t in particularly great form then either. Success hasn’t come in abundance for the 31-year-old, but three of his top-10 finishes on Tour have come in this area of the country.

Higgs shot an impressive 62 here in round two in 2020, which would certainly be enough to capture the first-round lead this year.

Your Reaction?
  • 1
  • LEGIT3
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK1

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Vincenzi’s Fortinet Championship betting preview: California native ready for breakthrough win in Napa



After a three-week break, the 2022-23 PGA TOUR season kicks off in Napa Valley at the Silverado Resort and Spa to play the Fortinet Championship.

Prior to 2021, the event was called the Safeway Open, but the tournament sponsor changed to Fortinet with contract that will last for three more seasons. Although the name has changed multiple times, Silverado’s North Course has been featured on the PGA TOUR since 1968.

The course is a par 72, measuring at 7,166 yards. Silverado features Poa annua greens that can be tricky, especially as the surface becomes bumpier in the afternoon. The tree-lined fairways aren’t easy to hit, but the rough shouldn’t be exceedingly penal. Shorter hitters are in play on this relatively short course, and accuracy will be at a premium.

There will be a re-routing at Silverado for this year’s Fortinet Championship. Ten holes will be played in a different order. Holes 1-7 and 18 will remain as in year’s past. The new finishing stretch – No. 14 (par 4), No. 15 (par 5), No. 16 (par 4), No. 17 (par 3) and No. 18 (par 5). The new 17th was previously the 11th, which is the signature hole on the course.

The field will consist of 155 players. Being the swing season, the field for this event is usually relatively weak. However, there are some intriguing names in the field including Justin Thomas, Webb Simpson, Sahith Theegala, Joel Dahmen, and Kevin Kisner.

Past Winners

  • 2022: Max Homa (-22)
  • 2021: Max Homa (-19)
  • 2020: Stewart Cink (-21)
  • 2019: Cameron Champ (-17)
  • 2018: Kevin Tway (-14)
  • 2017: Brendan Steele -15
  • 2016: Brendan Steele -18

Let’s take a look at several key metrics for Silverado to determine which golfers boast top marks in each category over their last 24 rounds.

Strokes Gained: Approach

Historically, one of the North Course’s defenses will be tightly tucked pin placement, so effective shot-shaping and a higher ball flight may be an advantage this week. In order to find success, players need to hit the correct level of the sloping Poa Annua greens.

Strokes Gained: Approach past 24 rounds:

  1. Chez Reavie (+24.7)
  2. Sam Ryder (+20.0)
  3. Mark Hubbard (+17.8)
  4. Kevin Streelman (+18.3)
  5. Doug Ghim (+17.1)

Good Drives Gained

Hitting fairways in regulation at Silverado is more difficult than TOUR average, as players have done so in the past at a rate of only 52.2%. While the rough isn’t extremely long here, controlling spin out of the thick grass is much more difficult than doing so from the fairway. In order to find success, players need to hit the correct level of the sloping Poa annua greens.

In 2021, the top eight players on the leaderboard all had a positive week in “Good Drives Gained. The winner, Max Homa was +3.3 in the category and Mito Pereira, who finished third, was +8.3.

In 2022, 12 of the top 13 players on the leaderboard gained in the category including the winner Max Homa (+6.0) and runner up Danny Willet (5.0).

Good Drives Gained past 24 rounds:

  1. Doug Ghim (+24.4) 
  2. Matt NeSmith (+23.8) 
  3. Russell Knox (+20.6)
  4. Brice Garnett (+19.9)
  5. Ryan Armour (+19.8)

Par 4: 400-450

There are six par 4’s at Silverado that are between 400 and 450-yards. It will be important to target players who excel at playing these holes. With the par 5s being fairly short and reachable, the par 4 scoring may prove to be the bigger difference-maker.

Par 4: 400-450 past 24 rounds:

  1. Beau Hossler (+14.7) 
  2. Max Homa (+12.4)
  3. Garrick Higgo (+8.5)
  4. Justin Suh (+8.3)
  5. Stephan Jaeger (+8.2)

Birdie or Better: Gained

With scores at Silverado potentially approaching the 20 under par range, making plenty of birdies will be a requirement in order to contend this week.

Birdie or Better: Gained in past 24 rounds:

  1. Nick Hardy (+15.3)
  2. Scott Piercy (+15.2)
  3. Ryan Gerard (+14.9)
  4. Max Homa (+14.0)
  5. Peter Kuest (+13.5)

Strokes Gained: Putting (Poa Annua)

Poa annua greens on the West Coast can be quite difficult for golfers to adjust to if they don’t have much experience on the surface.

Prior to the 2019 Safeway Open, Phil Mickelson talked about how the type of putting surface is a major factor:

“I think a lot of guys struggle with the Poa annua greens, which is a grass that I grew up playing, so I’m very comfortable on the greens. When you grow up and spend most of your time back east in Florida on the Bermuda, this is a very awkward surface to putt on. The color looks different — it’s hard to sometimes read. But when you’re used to it, I don’t know of much better surfaces than these right here.”

This week it is important to look for the golfers who historically excel on Poa annua.

Total Strokes Gained in category in past 24 rounds:

  1. Kevin Kisner (+27.7) 
  2. Max Homa (+21.2)
  3. Peter Malnati (+20.5)
  4. Justin Suh (+18.5)
  5. Mackenzie Hughes (+16.0)

Statistical Model

Below, I’ve reported overall model rankings using a combination of the five key statistical categories previously discussed.

These rankings are comprised of SG: APP (25%), Good Drives Gained: (25%), Birdie or Better (20%), Par 4: 400-450 (15%), SG: Putting (Poa annua) (15%).

  1. Max Homa (+750)
  2. Doug Ghim (+5000)
  3. Andrew Putnam (+4000)
  4. Chez Reavie (+4500)
  5. Kevin Streelman (+5500)
  6. Mark Hubbard (+5000)
  7. Sam Ryder (+7000)
  8. Brendon Todd (+3500)
  9. Akshay Bhatia (+6000)
  10. Cameron Davis (+2200)

2023 Fortinet Championship Picks

Sahith Theegala +2000 (DraftKings):

Sahith Theegala is yet to break out for his maiden PGA Tour victory but is a great candidate for a player who can have a strong fall and take advantage of some weaker fields. The 26-year-old ended his season on a positive note, finishing 13th at the FedEx St. Jude and 15th at the BMW Championship.

I’ve long believed that Theegala’s first win would come on the West Coast. He grew up in California and was a three-time All-American at Pepperdine University, where he became the fifth player to win the Jack Nicklaus Award, Haskins Award and Ben Hogan award all in the same year (2020). Sahith made his PGA Tour debut at Silverado in 2020, where he finished in a tie for 14th. Last year, he finished 6th at the Fortinet Championship.

Theegala is very comfortable playing in California. That is perhaps most noticeable on the putting surface where he gains an average of +0.44 strokes on the field per event on POA, which is more than four times what he gains on Bermudagrass or Bentgrass. The POA greens at Silverado can get especially difficult late in the day, which is a reason why players with a background on them have had so much success at the course. In the past seven years of the event, five winners have come from California.

Theegala is pricey this week and is as close to the top of the odds board as I can remember him being, but that’s the nature of the PGA Tour fall season. It’s hard to find a spot on the schedule that Sahith will have a better chance at winning than this one.

Justin Suh +5000 (PointsBet)

Consistency has been an issue early in the career of Justin Suh, but he’s shown flashes in 2023 of what made him such a highly regarded prospect to begin with. After a few top-10 finishes at the PLAYERS Championship and the Honda Classic, Suh ended the season on a bit of a sour note, failing to finish better than 34th in his last five starts of the season.

Despite the struggles, I’m optimistic about Suh as we begin the fall swing. The 26-year-old made the trip to Crans-Montana, Valais, Switzerland to play in the Omega European Masters, and finished 24th in a decent field. More encouraging than the finish was how Suh hit the ball. He gained 5.24 strokes on approach and hit plenty of fairways.

The 2018 Pac-12 Player of the Year grew up on California golf courses. Suh was a highly decorated amateur golfer with plenty of wins on the West Coast prior to attending USC, where he was one of the best players in the country.

When he’s on, Suh is one of the best putters on Tour, and he should comfortable playing in his home state in search of his first PGA Tour victory.

Akshay Bhatia +5500 (DraftKings):

Akshay Bhatia is still just 21 years old and one of the most tantalizing prospects in the world of golf. The smooth-swinging lefty was able to obtain his first PGA Tour victory at the Barracuda Championship at Tahoe Mountain Club in Truckee, California just a few months ago. The course is just a few hours ride from Silverado and the conditions and course should be very similar.

Bhatia will have no issue making birdies in bunches at Silverado, and the rough shouldn’t be exceedingly penal if he gets loose with his driver.

Bhatia made his debut at Silverado in 2020 at just 18 years old and managed to finish 9th. Since then, he’s gained a great deal of confidence and has refined his game as a professional.

Akshay got engaged this week. He can celebrate with a victory this week at the Fortinet.

Sam Ryder +8000 (FanDuel):

Statistically, Sam Ryder jumps off the page this week. In his past four measured starts, he’s gained 4.2, 5.4, 5.2 and 5.7 strokes on approach and is completely dialed in with his irons. Despite the numbers, he hasn’t managed to crack the top-30 on the leaderboard in that stretch but this is a field that is much weaker than he faced at the end of last season.

In addition to the recent stats, Ryder played some good golf on the West Coast last year. Most notably, he finished 4th at Torrey Pines in a loaded field and also finished 20th at both the Waste Managment Phoenix Open and the Genesis Invitational.

If Ryder continues with his hot approach play, he should be able to contend at Silverado this week.

Your Reaction?
  • 7
  • LEGIT7
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK3

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

The Wedge Guy: Understanding iron designs, Part 2




As promised, here is the follow-up to last week’s post about understanding iron designs. Today, I’m going to tell you what to look for as you try to figure out which iron best suits your type of play and is most likely to deliver the performance you seek. Oh, and these principles apply to wedges as well.

Let me begin with a historical observation.

Up until the introduction of the first mainstream cavity back/perimeter-weighted irons, the entire market was limited to some type of forged blade design. Across the entire spectrum of brands and models, there were only subtle nuanced differences from one to the other. Some featured some kind of “muscle back”, where the mass was concentrated low in the clubhead and the shaping formed a sort of crescent on the back of the club, the majority of mass being in the center of the clubhead (from heel to toe). Others spread that mass more evenly across the back of the clubhead (i.e. the Hogan designs), while others shaped their back to provide a bit more mass toward the toe, as in the traditional Wilson Staff models.

Then the “revolution” came with the Ping Eye 2 and all its copies. These early cavity-back designs moved much of the mass to the extreme perimeter of the clubhead, leaving a thin face, which delivered a high degree of forgiveness of off-center hits, but also deteriorated the consistent distance control delivered by the traditional forged blades. They also launched the ball much higher, making long- and mid-irons much easier to hit, but compromising the traditional precision of shorter irons.

Golfers had to make choice between shotmaking precision and forgiveness of mishits.

This design “revolution” also set in motion the continual strengthening of lofts in the shorter clubs to where we are today when “P-clubs” can be as low as 42 degrees – a far cry from what a true “pitching wedge” must be. See my post on that here

The one thing in common with both of these approaches to iron design was that “what you see is what you get.” There were no internal technologies, so a visual examination of the clubhead could tell you pretty much how that iron was going to play.

As iron technologies have advanced, many radical designs have come and gone, but the performance of the traditional blade and the traditional cavity-back remain. Modern technologies allow much more precision in making iron heads, and multi-material construction has given club designers much more freedom to explore and refine performance, but these principles of iron head design are constant. For the most part, the golf ball will react to how a clubhead’s mass is distributed and where its CG is located. Period.

Understand that for each clubhead number or loft, the weight of the clubhead does not vary by more than a few grams from model to model to model. The designers’ challenge is to position that finite amount of mass in such a way as to achieve the performance goals for that particular model. So, here are the parameters designers have to consider, and that you can consider when looking for a new set of irons:

To begin, golf ball performance is determined by how much mass will be directly behind various points of impact on the face. The reason blade designs are still preferred by the best shotmakers is that these designs put mass directly behind the point of impact with the ball, thereby giving the golfer the maximum ability to control distance, trajectory, and shape of the shot.

Conversely, if the area behind the strike zone is thin, the club will likely be “hotter” but distance consistency will be compromised.

If a large portion of the mass is positioned lower in the clubhead, that design will launch higher, and likely with less spin. While this might be desirable in the lower lofts; high launch and low spin are probably not what you want in your higher-lofted scoring clubs, say those over 37-39 degrees, and particularly not with your wedges.

If mass is concentrated in the center of the clubhead from heel to toe, center strikes will be extremely solid and repeatable, but misses toward the toe will be more compromised than a design that has the mass more evenly distributed across the entire clubhead.

If some of the mass is distributed toward the low toe area, that club will be more forgiving of toe mis-hits.
Thin, fast faces and hollow or foam-filled construction is the rage now, but the trade-off is losing some distance precision in exchange for more distance (which comes from higher launch and less spin).

Another modern development is the use of heavy tungsten inserts low in the clubhead, which adds to the higher loft and lower spin distance formula – that might be desirable in the longer irons, but that’s exactly the opposite of what you want in the scoring clubs.

Big wide soles were more the rage a while back than they are now, but the wider the sole, the lower the mass distribution, so the higher the launch angle and the lower the spin. And these super wide sole designs are not very good for tighter turf conditions.

All golf clubhead designs are bound by two distinct principles – gear effect and smash factor.

Gear effect determines the trajectory and spin the golf ball will take. The higher the clubhead mass is distributed (i.e. blade designs), the lower the ball flight and higher the spin rates. Likewise, the more mass that is distributed toward the toe or heel from the strike point, the more likely the ball will curve back to the center.

Smash factor is the efficiency of transfer of clubhead speed to ball speed. Every club has one perfect point of impact that maximizes smash factor and that transfer of energy begins to deteriorate as impact is moved away from that point. That’s why you get occasional “heaters” off most thin-faced irons and see significant distance loss on more traditional blades. It’s also why those high-face misses with traditional wedge designs just pop-up with greatly reduced distance and spin.

I hope this has been enlightening and helpful.

More from the Wedge Guy

Your Reaction?
  • 78
  • LEGIT12
  • WOW3
  • LOL5
  • IDHT3
  • FLOP1
  • OB1
  • SHANK27

Continue Reading