Equipment
Forum Thread of the Day: “Courses that are now obsolete on Tour due to power in the game?”
Today’s Forum Thread of the Day comes from Titleist99 who asks WRXers if they feel some golf courses are now obsolete on Tour due to the ever-growing power element in the game. Some of our members list tracks which they think will struggle to host majors again, while others explain why they feel every famous course still has its place on the calendar.
Here are a few posts from the thread, but make sure to check out the entire discussion and have your say at the link below.
- oikos1: “The courses aren’t obsolete because most fans enjoy seeing a course overpowered. Golf traditionalists may not like it but just look at other sports today. Sure, a no-no, once it gets to the 7th becomes interesting, but most fans want to see homers and runs scored. Same in basketball, no one wants a pro game ending at 60-54 and football clearly is shooting for high scoring passing affairs. The majority of golf fans just don’t want to watch pro’s grind it out every week. They want to cheer for birdies and eagles. They want to see if the impossible is possible, the potential for crazy good. Bring on the 54 in golf! So no, golf courses aren’t becoming obsolete. PGA Tour attendance has been on the rise the last three years. If anything, they are looking at ways to make the events bigger and will seek venues that allow for just that.”
- LICC: “Some former Majors courses that are now too short for the majors: St. Louis, Canterbury, Northwood, Prestwick, Myopia, Five Farms, Wannamoisett, Chicago Golf Club.”
- Obee: “The problem with the shorter courses is that the Tour players don’t like having driver taken out of their hands. And that’s really all it is. They get ‘bored.’I get it; it does take away a large part of the game. But I would love to see them play more short courses were drivers taken out of their hands on a good number of holes. But as far as ‘obsolete’ goes. None of the courses are obsolete. They are just different.”
- NJpatbee: “Course design and not just length add to the difficulty of a course. Pine Valley will never host a pro tournament because of their inability to handle the crowds; I would speculate that even the regular tees would be a challenge for the PGA Tour pros. The Championship Tees would be a bear. Now, I have never played there, but I am available if any member wishes to invite me!”
- Titleist99: “PGA TOUR might want to add a little rough to protect our classic courses..”
Entire Thread: “Courses that are now obsolete on tour due to power in the game?”
Equipment
Best ‘forgiving’ wedges – GolfWRXers discuss
In our forums, our members have been discussing the most forgiving wedges on the market. WRXer ‘aaronpoling’ lays out his current setup and what he’s currently considering, saying:
“I am looking at getting new wedges, but looking for a forgiving wedge.
I currently play Ping G25 50°, MD4 54° and 58°. I used to play the CBX2 in the 50°, 54° and 58° and liked them a lot; but like any good dad, my son took them.
I am currently looking Callaway’s CB12 and Cleveland’s CBZ. Anyone have thoughts on these? Or recommendations of other wedges that I should check out?”
And our members have been weighing in with their thoughts and recommendations in response, with one brand coming out emphatically on top.
Here are a few posts from the thread, but make sure to check out the entire discussion and have your say at the link below.
- boggyman: “CBZs are amazing wedges!”
- drewbens: “Agreed, the Cleveland CB wedges are great! Already had a CBX Full Face 2 54 and recently added a 50 and 58 (for well under $100 a piece). Was chipping so well last week that my brother-in-law asked if the wedges were legal. Definitely underrated wedges for those of us that are not scratch golfers.”
- BogeyTed: “Get Cleveland CBX/CBZ. Very underrated clubs.”
Entire Thread: “Best ‘forgiving’ wedges – GolfWRXers discuss”
Equipment
From the GolfWRX Classifieds: Ping PLD Ally Blue Onset putter
At GolfWRX, we are a community of like-minded individuals who all experience and express our enjoyment of the game in many ways.
It’s that sense of community that drives day-to-day interactions in the forums on topics that range from best driver to what marker you use to mark your ball. It even allows us to share another thing we all love – buying and selling equipment.
Currently, in our GolfWRX buy/sell/trade (BST) forum, @negncic has a Ping PLD Ally Blue Onset putter up for grabs.

From the listing: “34” Ping PLD Ally Blue Onset. Ping composite shaft Ping PLD Pistol grip. No issues. $345 shipped.”
To check out the full listing in our BST forum, head through the link. If you are curious about the rules to participate in the BST Forum, you can learn more here: GolfWRX BST Rules
Equipment
I built the worst fitting clubs ever – GolfWRXers discuss
In our forums, our members have been reacting to a WRXer who claims to have built the “worst fitting clubs ever.” ‘dlow206’ recounts his experience with plenty of insightful findings for where he can go better next time in a detailed post, saying:
“Here’s my story of building the worst fitting clubs ever (for me). And my findings of what a better fit is.
I am short in stature, as well as a very short wrist to floor of 30.5″. I went down a rabbit hole of wanting to try irons 1″ shorter of more than standard length. Given the shorter lengths, the swingweights would be super light unless I added back a ton of weight to the heads, but I don’t like adding an extreme amount of weight back to the heads, so I decided to compensate with heavier shafts (115 grams instead of 95). Played with this set for a while and was hitting all irons extremely poorly. Thin, fat, right, right, left. My swing didn’t deteriorate that much because I was hitting my driver well, woods well, etc.
Went back to my older set of irons, playing at standard length, and my iron play improved immediately. Since then, have been doing more testing, while paying more attention to different possible variables. What I have found is I actually prefer lighter total weight with relatively normal or slightly heavier swingweights. Did a recent fitting and found that 85 gram shafts were better for me than 95 grams with standard length and relatively standard swingweights.
Still trying to dial in a final iron shaft choice, so have a few contenders that I will be testing. Will be moving away from my current Steelfiber i95 S parallel to lighter and softer
- MMT 80 parallel R – worked pretty well in a limited number of swings at a fitting
- Fujikura Travil 85 R – the fitter liked the Axiom 95 R for me at Club Champion, but i didn’t love the effort required to swing them. If there was a 85 Axiom, that would probably have been a great fit. So i am going try a Travil 85 R which is japan only
- Steelfiber i80 CW R – i have been playing Steelfibers for a long time, so need to give one Steelfiber shaft a shot
Given I do club building work, I am going to build all of these shafts with the All-Fit universal iron adapters to pair with a Srixon 7 iron head for testing. With these adapters, there isn’t a swingweight issue because the amount of weight from drilling out is about equivalent to the universal adapter components.”
And our members have been sharing their reactions in our forum.
Here are a few posts from the thread, but make sure to check out the entire discussion and have your say at the link below.
- Mikey_HACKilroy: “That length cut costs you a fair amount in swing points. I’d posit the length mattered more than the weight because a 115g shaft isn’t going to actually add enough back after cutting an inch off. Does it mean 115 would ultimately work? Hard to say. Maybe try a 1/2″ cut and add 2g to the head to compensate assuming the 7i is 37″ long. Maybe that will feel better. It translates to the same ~D2 you’re swinging at with the 95g shafts (estimated based on common weight, but you can weigh your parts on your own obviously).”
- Stuart_G: “Your process is good – keep at it and trust it.”
Entire Thread: “I built the worst fitting clubs ever – GolfWRXers discuss”
-
Whats in the Bag2 weeks agoAaron Rai’s winning WITB: 2026 PGA Championship
-
Tour Photo Galleries2 weeks agoPhotos from the 2026 CJ Cup Byron Nelson
-
Tour Photo Galleries3 weeks agoPhotos from the 2026 PGA Championship
-
Equipment1 week agoCJ Cup Byron Nelson Tour Report: Koepka and Kim’s newest putters finally get hot
-
Equipment5 days agoDetails on J.J. Spaun’s surprise putter switch
-
Equipment3 weeks agoGolfWRX Launch Report: 2026 Titleist GTS drivers
-
Equipment2 weeks agoPGA Championship Tour Report: Fitzpatrick, Koepka among big-name putter switches for Aronimink
-
Popular Photo Galleries6 days agoPhotos from the 2026 Charles Schwab Challenge

Moosejaw McWilligher
Nov 21, 2019 at 3:09 am
No such thing as an “obsolete” golf course. A tournament requires that the winner takes one or more fewer strokes over 72 holes than everyone else. Whether that winning score is -30 or +10 makes little difference to most golf fans, and zero difference at all to the integrity of the game itself.
It DOES however, mean a lot to the enormous egos and enormous pocketbooks of golf course architects – who can pad their resume and their bank account by declaring courses “obsolete” and then getting paid to “re-design” (ie, lengthen) those courses. And the egos of members of private clubs who compensate for other shortcomings with their “big bad” golf course.
It also can affect the egos of old former pros who don’t like seeing their scores and records broken – which also makes zero difference to the integrity of the game.
“Obsolete” is fake news.