• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
tuffluck

Vokey SM4 60.04

12 posts in this topic

i picked one up today for super cheap just because it was a good deal.  i have been looking for a 60 degree as my UW is 50 and my only other wedge above 50 is a 56.11, which i love and use for all shots.  honestly the only use i ever see for a 60 (for me) is short sand shots and lobs in thick grass to a downhill running green.

anyway started doing some research and 4 degree bounce may be TOO low for what i want to use it for.  thoughts?  it was cheap so i could get a profit in resale, so if it's not for me then i really don't care.  just curious on thoughts nonetheless.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

04 wow thats a very low bounce that might be hard to play out of the sand IMO. Great for short chips and such of clean lies but i would thin that sucker alot. I prefer higher bounce out of the sand but hey check it out let me know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why is it hard to play in the bunker?

took it to the range tonight and hit around their greens.  it was excellent on the lob and even full shots i was hitting it ~65 yards.  i thought i might hit it fat because i've read that, but didn't seem to be the case.

bunker shots were fair but the sand was very poor quality and really dense, so i couldn't even hit sand shots well with my normal sand wedge.  normally though i would only play the 56 in the sand, i just want the 60 for those extremely short sand shots with very little green to work with.

anyone else?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think a 4* bounce will dig into the sand, not what you want.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it depends how the sand is at the course.

When it's rock hard (or a very short shot), my low bounce 60 degree is my sandwedge. When they have fluffed it - I use the high bounce 56 degree.

I am sure you will find a use for it somewhere.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

so is the consensus keep it or sell it and trade for a 7 degree?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by tuffluck

so is the consensus keep it or sell it and trade for a 7 degree?

if you can trade for a 7 degree, go for it - if not, enjoy the club

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

In one October range session, I met a guy with a CG12 60* LW with 4* bounce. He said he used it in spring or fall when the lies were tight. Otherwise, he uses about 8* bounce for LW.

He let me try a few shots. Off the brown scruff, it worked fine; remaining green fluff, more iffy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that would be great off tight lies or anything hard but something soft you would think it would just dig in like others said. i dont like to change clubs during the year so id get something else but its your bag.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a 4 degree for a week. It was not a good fit for the soft conditions that I typically play in. If it works keep it, if not get the 7 degree. Play a few rounds and report back. I have the old SM 60/8 and the 60 TVD.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Vokey 7 degree lob wedge. Versatile enough for most situations and playing conditions when the lob wedge is needed.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i play a 5 degree bounce mizuno and it works in all types of situations. I like the feel with low bounce wedges.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Where they let Rickie take that drop from is some BS. He should've been further back.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      He said something like "even your typical PGA Tour player these days would have been a superstar in my day." His point was that there are a TON more talented players who are far better than the guys he played against. I don't think it's quite as exaggerated as you might, but I also really don't care to get into it too deeply. The strength of field is multiple times stronger today than in 1968. There weren't that many overseas players. Or players in the U.S., for that matter. That alone accounts for strength of field differences. Very few foreign players came over to play on the PGA Tour. The money wasn't that good, unless you were one of the top players. It wasn't like it is today, and travel was still expensive. There's a reason players back then had to carpool, share hotel rooms, etc. Just look at the basic numbers. Once you get past the top one, two, maybe three players… it's folly to suggest it was likely that the top 15 players out of 1.5 million players is at all on the same level as the top 15 players from 100 million golfers. It's possible but highly, highly, highly unlikely. Furthermore, golf has attracted more and better athletes recently, too, which wasn't anywhere near as true in the 1960s. I get it. People like to romanticize the past. But the games and athletes move on and get better. That's irrelevant. He could only beat who he played against, and the truth is, he didn't beat weaker competition more often than Tiger Woods except in majors, he didn't win more money titles, more scoring titles, more individual awards, have higher margins of victory, etc. than Tiger Woods, all against weaker (Nicklaus's) competition. Jack might have chosen football if he grew up today. He might have been a career Web.com Tour player. Or he might have won 23 majors because he was that good and the modern advancements would have helped him that much. We don't know. It's pointless to speculate, IMO. I think the depth of field still matters and mattered in the majors. Even in the Opens. Even in events including only the top 50 players, there's still a big gap in depth from the 60s to the 00s.
    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Come on guys, I'm missing the 1st quarter of the Super Bowl. That being said, I think Fowler just sent his chances to a watery grave.
    • The Films and Movies Thread
      A little late finding this - X-Men, Days of Future Past Quicksilver scene in realtime.   
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      I'd be curious to see just what Jack said. I think "10 or 15" having a chance to win for typical PGA Tour events in any era is an exaggeration of the relative weakness of the fields. Even before there was a depth of talent in the U.S. and the 'golf craze' here took off, the money drew top level golfers from overseas who were following the better money available here in tournaments and pro positions. I accept there's been a general strengthening of fields as the expansion in prize money and the total population of competitive golfers (see chart below) have forced top golfers to have more preparation and polish, but I don't think there's really ever been a lack of generally elite level competition on the PGA tour or at the Majors since about the 20's or 30's. I think if the effect of a tiny number of truly top level competitors taking on a bunch of club pro relative 'dubs' was as strong as you seem to think that most of the top multiple Major winners would be golfers from the early days of the tour. But to me it looks pretty balanced across eras. I'll see if I can work up some actual numbers. By the 1920s there were likely about 1.5 million golfers (in the U.S. alone), which is a pretty healthy base from which to draw potential 'top talent'. Total participation in golf from when Jack started to when Tiger started roughly tripled. As far as rating 'achievement' you play in the era you play with the existing disadvantages and advantages. IMO, if Jack had grown up as a contemporary of Tiger with the same advantages of technology and swing instruction / coaching and the same disadvantages of a greater number of potential competitors that they would both have risen to elite levels and would have regularly been battling for Amateur and Major Championships. I don't think the potential ranges of human abilities / talent really change much in a few generations. Would I consider Tiger more competitively vetted, yes. Do I think that means his talent level and achievements were automatically greater than Jack's? No. I could see valuing Tiger's win total more than Jack's (and certainly Snead's with some 'iffy' events in the total) because of the relative talent base depth, but not sure that transfers as readily to the performance in Majors, particularly the Opens. I think it would have been amazing and exciting to be able to see them compete at their peaks rather than a boring foregone conclusion.  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries