Not sure one can deduce that from the play in this last weekend’s LA Open. Most all tour players do not go through any type of finite, organized wedge fitting. They mainly experiment, do their trial and error things, and choose their wedges from personal preference. Possibly if some WERE taken through a very formal organized wedge fitting, some might see improvements they’re otherwise missing. But another factor in this tournament at Riviera could be their Kikuyu grass – having played several times there and on Kikuyu elsewhere, this can be a literal nightmare to play off when it comes to controlling spin and controlling the movement of the sole through that type of “grabby grass”.

However, I too will sometimes marvel at how bad some of these guys can hit an occasional shot from inside 100 yds. . . at least until I then see them hit chips and sand shots that I cannot imagine getting close to the hole even if I had 50 times to hit the shot!

TOM

The CX Micro wedges were conforming because they were done and submitted BEFORE the 2010 change in the rules pertaining to scorelines. Under the old rule, the original micro groove lines in the CX wedges were not that difficult to get approved to be conforming. But we did discontinued this CX model when we brought out the PCF Micro wedges a few years ago. Now that has become a different matter with respect to USGA conformity because of how the micro grooves + face milling ran into the new 2010 scoreline specs. There were two specifics of the new groove rule, the change in groove AREA and the change in top edge radius. The PCF grooves passed the groove area rule no problem. But we continually ran into problems with this second rule change for the top edge radius because the much smaller groove of our micro groove lines combined with how the face milling ridges ran into the top edges of the micro-grooves made it very difficult to get EVERY LINE EDGE to have this increased top edge radius that was in the new 2010 rule. In the new rule, you now have to have EVERY line pass muster – not just 1 or 2 as the old rule said. So where we have a milling ridge that hits the edge of a micro groove is a problem because that ridge interrupts the radius of the top edge of the groove. Long story short this is one other reason I did the new Micro Groove HM wedges with HORIZONTAL milling to keep a milling ridge away from the top edge of a groove so that we could get these HM wedges past the new groove rule.

But yes, the new groove rule was a ridiculous action by the USGA because it has been proven over the past 2 years that it hasn’t changed anything out on tour – the bomb and gouge guys can still make pars and birdies from the rough. The new grooves do not penalize tee shots into the rough because the tour players have simply learned how to adjust for the slightly less spin generated by these grooves from the taller grass. They have learned to fly the ball a little shorter of the hole so when it releases, it still gets close enough to make a birdie or three and ensure a par. And yet once again the USGA acted to make a rule change that pretty much only caused hardship for the club manufacturers and not the long hitters they wanted to police.

TOM

Back in 2003 when we first created the equipment and the process for MOI matching, it was so new to the game that no one knew how to determine what MOI would be best for each golfer. Actually when you think about it, this wasn’t really a new problem to have because for swingweight matching of clubs that has been around since 1920, no one had any set in stone way to determine what swingweight would be right for this player or the next.

So in the very beginning of this MOI matching project, we THEORIZED that maybe one way to determine the right MOI for a golfer would be to reference the MOI of a “favorite club” for a golfer. As the years went by, and as more and more clubmakers started to use MOI matching in their work and as we continued to do fitting research, we started to move away from this favorite club concept into one that is just more common sense. And as the years continued, it really has been established with just about all the clubmakers who do MOI matching that this other way is better.

The process involves putting the golfer through the full fitting analysis to determine the golfer’s best fitting specs for everything BUT the MOI. Once the golfer’s best advised length, loft, face angle, shaft weight, shaft flex, shaft bend profile, total weight, clubhead, set make up and grip is all known, the clubmaker will build a test club with every one of these specs all in the club – but the headweight is left to be light with no final headweight yet established in the test club.

The golfer then is put through a hit test in which he hits 3-4 balls with the test club after which a couple of strips of lead tape are added to the head. The golfer hits 3-4-5 balls and reports to the clubmaker whether he likes/dislikes, whether the club feels good/bad, feels head light/head heavy – and the clubmaker uses impact labels or impact tracking spray on the face to look for what’s happening for on center hit percentage.

When the golfer says I like that and when the clubmaker sees the highest % of on center hits, the club is then measured for MOI and this then becomes the benchmark for the MOI of the rest of the set.

TOM

Thanks,

Dave

When trying to do BOTH an MOI match and a shaft frequency match on clubs in a set, it does take a little “futzing” and trial and error to get both to come out where you want them to be in the finished clubs. There is no set “rule” to follow for this because the frequency part requires experimenting with different amounts of tip trim and the MOI match part requires manipulating the headweight for the shaft trim. One important point is that you do not usually want to mess with what is the golfer’s best length for his clubs. That decision has to be separate and is based on the golfer’s physical makeup with a HEAVY influence from his swing characteristics. What we mean is that once you determine what is the right length for the golfer’s clubs, then you have to keep that what it is supposed to be while you then use the tip trim and head weight to get both the freq match and MOI match done. Doing both together in the same set of clubs is not easy and will take some experimentation before you get it right for both elements.

TOM

In the 9 yrs since we developed the equipment and the methodology for MOI matching, we have never found ball position to be any type of pre-requisite for the clubs when they are MOI matched to each other. Also in staying in touch with many of the clubmakers who have done MOI matching for years, we never hear from them that they ever see any requirement to alter the golfer’s learned or best ball position for their set up and swing. If the MOI is determined properly for each golfer based on their swing force, swing tempo, swing aggressiveness, there is no need to alter the ball position in any manner.

TOM

Thanks very much for your comments and we’re very glad to hear that you like the 550′s and PCF’s!! May they always treat you right when you play this great game!!!

TOM ;>)

I just want to say thank you for your tireless work. Also I just want you to know I have your 550MB and PCF wedges and can not imagine how I got by with OEM wedges before hand. everyone who tries them admires the craftsmanship that obviously went into it.

Regards
Matt