USGA Ban on High Lofted Wedges

[JessN16]

I don't think very many people are at all in favor of bifurcation, and that's what you're advocating. It's a whole different argument.

Maybe not, but all the other major participation sports have it to some degree and you could argue that golf does based on its teeing system divided based on handicap. Baseball has no aluminum bats at the top level, basketball a longer three-point line, football changes the goal post widths, etc. In golf, the course the pros play is already unlike the course the daily fee or country club member plays.

How far you want to extend those differences is the key, I think. The argument in bowling right now -- which already has different lane oil patterns at the PBA level, and in its "sport-compliant" leagues versus regular league play -- is whether limits on ball technology and friction/oil absorbsion rates are going to make the game too hard for the amateur, especially now that they've become accustomed to having those tools. Where that differs from golf is that these rule changes in golf seem to be aimed at limiting the pros, damn the consequences on those of lower ability, while in bowling it's the opposite (i.e., to cut down on high scores by unskilled players, whereas the pros will still be able to score). And my point is this: There is a point at which limiting the novice or average player's access to good scores becomes bad for business. While those that support making the game as difficult as possible can pat themselves on the back for doing so, I guess, the question becomes, what are they actually proving? Sure, it will separate the wheat from the chaff at the pro level, but it might also cause collateral damage in the ranks of the guys who (a) aren't ever going to be good enough to threaten those players, anyway, and (b) who may leave the sport if the fun quotient goes down. When the USBC (bowling's version of the USGA) first came out with its sport-compliant programs about 10 years ago, it was hailed as a way to challenge people to test themselves on tougher conditions and with fewer tools (in the form of not having a lane oil condition that promoted a big "hooking" ball, thus greater angle on entry into the pins, thus greater pin carry and scoring). The only problem is, no one signed up. This program was voluntary in nature, and sport leagues have only a fraction -- I'd guess around 5-10 percent, tops -- of the participation as amateur leagues. What that has told us is that, while some people enjoy a challenge, far more people want to just have fun. So far, golf hasn't really cut into the "duffer level" yet; the groove law doesn't affect most of us in the least, drivers still forgive our mis-hits and those of us (certainly not me) who can hit high-lofted wedges benefit from being able to get to the green. The question is, where will people no longer tolerate a cut? What's the next one? Force everyone to play blades? Cut driver size back to 300cc or less? Get rid of mallet putters with face inserts? I think you have to consider both the skilled and the unskilled whenever you make a universal change in the game. Failing that, you need to build progression into the equipment rules, which allows the guys who are serious about competition to self-separate from the ones that aren't. Jess

[Fourputt]

All of this panic is totally premature, probably unnecessary, and very likely in vain. The entire case is in its infancy, will probably never be acted on (IMHO), and if is, nothing we say here will have any effect on the decision anyway.

And JessN16: Unusual clubs like wedges from 64° and up do NOT attract new golfers, nor are they what may keep those new players interested. I know a lot of players of all skill levels, and I don't know a soul who uses or has any interest in a wedge loft higher than 60°. A lot of the guys I play with don't use anything more than a 56° SW. I started the game with nothing higher than a 9I, and I played for many years with only PW, not even a SW.

I tried a 64° many years ago and found it to be little more than a gimmick club. I could impress people by dropping a ball in my backyard less than 10 feet from the edge of our 2nd story deck and flop the ball up onto the deck. Not a skill that has a lot of use on the golf course. I've also owned a couple of 60° wedges... never could get consistent with them either. Now I'm limiting myself to 58°, and that seems about right. BTW, I can now hit that same flop shot with the 58°, thus further proving my point.

[JessN16]

All of this panic is totally premature, probably unnecessary, and very likely in vain. The entire case is in its infancy, will probably never be acted on (IMHO), and if is, nothing we say here will have any effect on the decision anyway.

My experience has been that if it's about Item X today, it tends to grow to Item Y tomorrow.

The high-lofted wedges certainly don't do anything for me. One of my regular playing partners, though, who is only a few strokes better than me per round, would be lost without his. If you were to expand it cover chippers, I'd be severely hurt. I use one to do everything from come out of sand to chip to hit runners to punch out of trees to even tee off on short par-3s. The big issue, of course, is if the driver standard ever changed. I suspect the same thing would keep big drivers safe that keeps high-po bowling balls safe -- changing the regs would immediately draw a loud outcry not only from the hackers, but from the companies who have invested so much R&D; in them. I'm not worried about the wedges; I'm worried about what could come later, so I would prefer someone nipped it in the bud now rather than then. Jess

[I KyotE I]

USGA is killing the Pelz system. I wish I could do more with a 56...but I can't...problems with that is I can't hit a 60 either.

[Mr Eagle]

I use a 64* wedge,its a great club for chipping over bunkers and around the green in genral.I suppose I wouldnt need it if my approach play was a little more accurate though.I can see where you guys are comming from in saying it dosnt do anything a 56* cant do but Im comfortable using it and thats good enough for me.If it is banned then I'll have to adapt,end of

[onthehunt526]

I'll put it to u guys and gals this way... I'm a +5 and I don't even play a 60... I may do a 54/58 deal but i don't play a 60... I basically learned to play without the 60... Up until 2 years ago I still carried a 1-iron!!! I dropped it for a mid wedge... (53 degree at the time)... but have never carried a 60... I own many... never found there way into the bag... and I'm a +5... It's like hybrids but that's a different thread...

That being said, I think if it gets capped it will get capped at 60 degrees... but then again studies take years and studies are not necessarily pre-emptive for a rule change... it even says it in the article about the study...

If it gets changed it will be at least four years before we see it... because the USGA and R & A only meet to change the rules once every FOUR years... though I'm in the group that thinks its 8-12 years before any rule change on that front... and maybe only after 14 years of the groove rule... when it gets revisited in 2024... if that has effect the wedges won't get changed...

[Mr Eagle]

I'll put it to u guys and gals this way... I'm a +5 and I don't even play a 60... I may do a 54/58 deal but i don't play a 60... I basically learned to play without the 60... Up until 2 years ago I still carried a 1-iron!!! I dropped it for a mid wedge... (53 degree at the time)... but have never carried a 60... I own many... never found there way into the bag... and I'm a +5...

Mickelson carries a 60, maybe if you did you could get to + 6

[Fourputt]

Mickelson carries a 60, maybe if you did you could get to + 6

Mickelson carried a 64° at least some of the time last season. But he tries a lot of things other pros don't... think of the 2 driver experiment from a couple of years ago.

Most pros don't carry anything higher than 60°. Tom Watson has never carried any club higher than 57°, and he was always noted for a superb greenside game.

[iacas]

Maybe not, but all the other major participation sports have it to some degree

This isn't about other sports.

and you could argue that golf does based on its teeing system divided based on handicap.

No, you couldn't argue that. Where you choose to play from is just that - a choice - and it's certainly not "equipment."

Baseball has no aluminum bats at the top level, basketball a longer three-point line, football changes the goal post widths, etc.

I don't care about other sports, and that doesn't help your argument. Golf has 200 years of history without bifurcation.

In golf, the course the pros play is already unlike the course the daily fee or country club member plays.

The equipment, however, is the same.

The argument in bowling right now

Still don't care about other sports.

Where that differs from golf is that these rule changes in golf seem to be aimed at limiting the pros, damn the consequences on those of lower ability,

No, not "damn the consequences." They perform studies. If they affect the pros while not affecting the average golfer much, that's basically the opposite of "damn the consequences on those of lower ability."

And my point is this: There is a point at which limiting the novice or average player's access to good scores becomes bad for business.

And yet, without a 64 degree wedge, golf courses might not put the flags so close to the edges of the greens, increasing the average player's access to good scores.

Besides, in a sport with a handicapping system as effective as golf, why should the "average player" have increased access to "good scores?" Studies show the average handicap index of golfers hasn't decreased since the 70s. Clearly the 64 degree wedge had no impact on the average golfer.

While those that support making the game as difficult as possible

That's not what anyone's advocating, and I don't particularly care to be painted by that brush. It's cheap.

Sure, it will separate the wheat from the chaff at the pro level

Sounds good to me.

but it might also cause collateral damage in the ranks of the guys who (a) aren't ever going to be good enough to threaten those players, anyway, and (b) who may leave the sport if the fun quotient goes down.

Uhmm, no. For two reasons:

a) again, the USGA does a study. In fact, that's all they've announced they're doing here. b) most "average golfers" don't even have a 60 degree wedge let alone one with more loft. Furthermore, most average golfers shouldn't have a wedge with 60 or more degrees of loft.

When the USBC (bowling's version of the USGA)

Zzzzzzzzzzz.....

What that has told us is that, while some people enjoy a challenge, far more people want to just have fun.

Right, so we should all be able to shoot under par. Did it ever occur to you that bowling ain't golf? That the allure of bowling and golf are different? That what people expect from each is different?

I don't see a ton of "average golfers" playing golf solely because they are so good with their 64 degree wedge.

The question is, where will people no longer tolerate a cut? What's the next one? Force everyone to play blades? Cut driver size back to 300cc or less? Get rid of mallet putters with face inserts?

That's not the topic here, and you're getting

way too far ahead of yourself.

I think you have to consider both the skilled and the unskilled whenever you make a universal change in the game.

And I don't think you have

any information that says the USGA is doing otherwise. Again, I'm not saying I support (or don't) this at all - I'll be curious to see what the study says when it comes out. But I'm not going to tolerate poor logic or someone putting words in the mouths of the USGA or those who are simply pointing out that this won't affect most amateurs at all.

[denver_nuggs_15]

I think this is amazing. I don't carry any of the 60*+ wedges, so it won't hurt me. However, while caddying, I have seen countless people carry 62 and 64 degree wedges...only to have them mess the shot up anyway. It's one more club that I don't have to clean. Most (not all) of the guys who carry 60*+ wedges have terrible short games. This brings us to Phillip.

Whoever brought up Mr. Mickelson as an example of why we should carry a 64* does not think. He is (IMO) the most overrated golfer today. With Tiger gone, then #2 (now #3) should have won a considerable number of events. I think the guy is plain stupid...Let's carry 2 drivers-How 'bout no drivers-How about a 64* wedge. He's not that successful, so why should we do what he does. Drop the 64* Phil and carry a driver instead!

58* is the max I would carry. 60* doesn't fit my gaps properly. 64* looks like I'll hit myself in the face with the ball. I think it's a lot easier to have 1, 2, or 3 clubs that you're going to use around the greens. For me, it's a 56*, 46* (not often though) and an 8 iron. I have seen so many people wonder whether to use their 52, 56, 60, or 9 iron on a particular shot. They pick whatever club and mess it up anyway.

The rule is meant to affect PGA pros. I like seeing them shoot only 3 under as opposed to 18 under for a tourney. Does anyone know the exact number of pros who carry 60*+ wedges? Not many. Tiger doesn't...Sergio doesn't...Paddy doesn't...

In conclusion, 64* are stupid and a waste of money. The USGA is doing you a favor.

[Fourputt]

I repeat... this is nothing more than fodder for conspiracy theorists, and Jess is proving my point. He has decided to panic because someone leaked an industry communication precisely for that purpose. The first 64° wedge I ever saw was a Slotline wedge, and that was back in about 1990. Obviously they didn't catch on, since most people didn't even hear of one until the last couple of years.

[Stacey_E]

I am one of the very few that carries a 64*. But I'll just get rid of it IF (big IF and waaay down the road) it is outlawed. I don't carry it because Pelz told me to. In fact I put 5 wedges in the bag because I don't really care for the Pelz system. 9:00 swing, 10:30 swing, etc. come on give me a break. And I also kinda agree that less wedges means leans choices to confuse you. But I carried this over to the rest of the set.

For example I am willing to admit that a 4hybrid, 3hybrid, 5 wood, 3 wood setup is uneccesary for me given my swing speed, angle of attack, launch conditions, ball striking ability etc. Just like many have chosen to simplify the bottom of their sets, I did the same with the top. So when all was said and done I had room in the bag for more clubs, and adding them to the top did me no good.

I realize I'm in the rare minority that saves more strokes with my 64* than I loose. I know this because I've kept track of my greenside performance with my wedges. Although I carry 5 wedges I do virtually all of my pitching and chipping with the 55* or 64*, depending on lie, pin location, course conditions, etc.

So if there was a ban on anything over a 60*, 58* whatever, then it just is what it is. I'll conform to that. I certainly won't play outlaw style. But until and if the rules change I will continue to carry the 14 clubs that give me the most bag coverage on full swing shots without leaving a gap larger than 15 yards between any club. For now that setup is the one I currently carry. As my swing changes, distance increases, and handicap drops I'm sure my bag setup will change to allow me to take the most advantage of the 14 club rule.

[ProfessorGAC]

80 Degrees!?!?!?!? That's preposterous. There probably aren't but 100 people in the whole world that could hit that club reliably.

Maybe it's made for people who can't figure out how to flop it! And you know what, if you're over a 10 handicap, you probably shouldn't be trying a flop anyway. There are lots of other useful shots if you're parring less than half the holes. A chip and run, even on a downhill run is probably more useful for a bogey golfer than a flop. Probably keep it inside of 10 feet WAY more often.
GAC

[ProfessorGAC]

Thanks, that's good to know. I'm a 4 and i don't use a 60 either. I've got one (i had 52, 56 and 60 Vokeys) but i went to the lower two lofts a LONG time ago. I don't even use those wedges anymore, so it was probably 15 years ago that i got them.

I use a 52 and a 56, both Mizuno MP series, and there's plenty i can do with those. Having an even more specialized club would just add more vaiables.

And if a +5 doesn't need one, then i don't either. The 9 strokes difference between you and me is night and day!
GAC

[JessN16]

This isn't about other sports.

Perhaps you'll be open-minded enough to realize that it's acceptable to look at how other people do things to see if they might be building a better mousetrap?...

I don't care about other sports...

...or maybe not.

... and that doesn't help your argument.

I suspect that's mostly due to the fact you don't agree with it.

Golf has 200 years of history without bifurcation.

True, although they did spend a century or longer in this country "bifurcating" the races and the sexes. While that's on a completely different plane than a simple equipment rule, it also means the USGA isn't infallible, or opposed to major change if it sees fit or sees that it's necessary.

Still don't care about other sports.

OK.

No, not "damn the consequences." They perform studies. If they affect the pros while not affecting the average golfer much, that's basically the opposite of "damn the consequences on those of lower ability."

I pin my hopes on this, then, as it seems that at least a significant number of average ams like to use them. Even though I don't, I think it's bully for the ones that can and I'd like to see them be able to keep the things they like. I would hope they would come to my defense if the roles were reversed.

Studies show the average handicap index of golfers hasn't decreased since the 70s. Clearly the 64 degree wedge had no impact on the average golfer.

If average HI hasn't increased since the 70s, would that also not mean that advancements in balls, driver clubheads, putters and course maintenance also hasn't had any effect? Yet we now have a standard on driver clubheads, and balls are a hot topic.

My own opinion on that is that the gains given by equipment, balls and course maintenance have been balanced by a drop in practice (and thus, a drop in the level learned skills overall), although I couldn't say that for sure. That's what's happened in bo....eh, nevermind. Point being, if you're the USGA and you're basing your rule changes for a membership of millions, the vast majority of which aren't pros, you either use the market of greatest impact (the ams) to set your rule changes, or you use a staggered rule system. If the HI hasn't increased in the last 30-40 years, then there's no reason or even justification to break that which is fixed.

Uhmm, no. For two reasons: a) again, the USGA does a study. In fact, that's all they've announced they're doing here. b) most "average golfers" don't even have a 60 degree wedge let alone one with more loft. Furthermore, most average golfers shouldn't have a wedge with 60 or more degrees of loft.

Oh, really? Shouldn't because you don't think any of them are capable of hitting one, or shouldn't for the reasons that you "don't (want) to be painted with that brush" about?

Zzzzzzzzzzz.....

Coffee will be ready in about two minutes, be patient.

Right, so we should all be able to shoot under par. Did it ever occur to you that bowling ain't golf? That the allure of bowling and golf are different? That what people expect from each is different?

No, I never thought of that. It never crossed my mind why a Pro-V1x doesn't knock down any more pins than a Noodle, or why I can't seem to properly balance that 16-pound piece of urethane on a tee. And speaking of which, these new drivers dent really easily and mine has developed a terrible vibration.

I don't see a ton of "average golfers" playing golf solely because they are so good with their 64 degree wedge...AND That's not the topic here, and you're getting way too far ahead of yourself....AND...And I don't think you have any information that says the USGA is doing otherwise.

I don't see a ton of them playing to play with

any club, except maybe guys who think their average driving distance is an extension of their...kneecap. That was never my point. My point is that there has been a fairly significant amount of rule changes to come down the pike in the recent years, with the USGA chipping away at this or that. So far, nothing they've done has affected me, but what affects me may not affect you or the guy next to you. And that leads me to the following two concluding statements: One, it is much more palatable to any sport, including golf, to set parameters up front rather than let something go one way for a great amount of time and then pull it back. I was out of the game when the driver-size rules were put into place, but I don't recall ever seeing a club larger than 460 cc before. If that's true -- and if the rule was put in as a rule you could work up to rather than one you had to scale back to -- it was done the proper way. When you do that, you give someone a target to hit, the target isn't going to move, and everyone understands the rules of that game upfront. And two, I'm very fond of the saying by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, the one that people erroneously ascribe to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Applied to sports, I may not get a benefit from something that benefits you, but I will defend your right or privilege to use it as if it were me. I'm not being a "conspiracy theorist." I just see the USGA pruning the edges and sooner or later, they may or may not cut my branch. I'd rather they not continue to fiddle with a product I feel is pretty close to flawless -- but at the same time, one without a lot of room to contract before it starts showing flaws. Jess

[jcrob902]

I agree, personally I don't see any reason to carry anything above a 60*, I carry a 60* but thats because I know how to use it and it fits into my yardage and loft gap, if your pitching wedge is 48* and you don't carry a gap of around 52* then for your benefit you probably should not carry a 56*-60* combo on the other hand if you have a good short game and can take advantage of higher lofted clubs and you fit your gaps right like say 48*-52*-56*-60* drop your 3 iron & 5wood go with like a 19*hi-brid to fill between your 15* 3 wood and 22* 4iron I think thats a pretty good set up for most mid-high or mid-low handicappers

[Shindig]

True, although they did spend a century or longer in this country "bifurcating" the races and the sexes. While that's on a completely different plane than a simple equipment rule, it also means the USGA isn't infallible, or opposed to major change if it sees fit or sees that it's necessary.

Really, now? The rules of golf had separate rules for different races and sexes? Or are you confusing golf course owners with the USGA?

By the way, courses routinely have rules that limit which equipment you can use, or in which situations. The most common rule of this type is the one requiring you to use a putter on the putting green.

[iacas]

Perhaps you'll be open-minded enough to realize that it's acceptable to look at how other people do things to see if they might be building a better mousetrap?

It's not being close-minded to say "that sport doesn't relate to golf in the way you're trying to make it relate."

Golf is usually older than most other sports AND has ALWAYS had the same rules. THAT is what makes bringing other sports into the discussion a flawed concept. Additionally, other sports generally don't have one ruling body. MLB rules, NFL rules, NHL rules, NBA rules - they're all different than the rules at the college level, the amateur/recreational level, etc. The USGA's rules are for ALL of golf (in the U.S. and Mexico).

I suspect that's mostly due to the fact you don't agree with it.

I don't disagree with your argument either - I'm simply attacking the grossly flawed logic. All the USGA is doing here is

conducting a study . I've said several times I don't have a position and likely won't until I see the results.

True, although they did spend a century or longer in this country "bifurcating" the races and the sexes.

No, they didn't, and the fact that you think the USGA did shows how completely ignorant you are on this topic. Your comment was disgusting.

I pin my hopes on this, then, as it seems that at least a significant number of average ams like to use them.

A significant percentage do not use them, no. It's on the order of (low) single-digit percentages.

If average HI hasn't increased since the 70s, would that also not mean that advancements in balls, driver clubheads, putters and course maintenance also hasn't had any effect? Yet we now have a standard on driver clubheads, and balls are a hot topic.

Your first logic breakthrough!? Look, all those new technologies haven't done squat for the average golfer! Wowee! Ya think the 64 degree wedge might just fit into that category as well? Maybe?

And balls are a hot topic among the nuts who think the game has somehow been "ruined." The USGA hasn't said jack about balls for five or six years.

Point being, if you're the USGA and you're basing your rule changes for a membership of millions, the vast majority of which aren't pros, you either use the market of greatest impact (the ams) to set your rule changes, or you use a staggered rule system.

Nope, sorry, and it seems I gave you credit too soon. Logic FAIL.

A third option is also viable: you enact rule changes that affect only the targeted level of golfer but which are in effect for everyone.

Oh, really? Shouldn't because you don't think any of them are capable of hitting one, or shouldn't for the reasons that you "don't (want) to be painted with that brush" about?

Uhm, I said "most average golfers shouldn't have a wedge with 60 or more degrees of loft" because it'd be detrimental to their games. To put it another way, for their own good, most golfers shouldn't have a 64 degree wedge in their bags. They'll save more strokes chipping or hitting to the fat part of the green and one- or two-putting.

That's a totally separate issue than "should they be legal or not?" The USGA, should they eventually rule that 61+ are illegal, will not be basing their decision on "for their own good" but rather "for the good of the game." They won't be removing the clubs because golfers "shouldn't have them." That's simply something I believe - whether a rule exists or not - because high lofted wedges do more harm than good to most average golfers.

No, I never thought of that.

I don't think you're smart enough to pull off sarcasm. Clearly you aren't in this instance. I'd explain it to you in depth (short version: Why are you talking about the balls again? That's got nothing to do with what I was saying.), but I don't care to waste the time.

My point is that there has been a fairly significant amount of rule changes to come down the pike in the recent years

Name three related to equipment within the past decade. Go on... I'll spot you the groove rule - a rule that for most golfers doesn't even take effect for another decade or so - and challenge you to find even two more. (It can be done, but the impact of the rules you're likely to find is tiny.)

One, it is much more palatable to any sport, including golf, to set parameters up front rather than let something go one way for a great amount of time and then pull it back.

Sure, but the corollary is that "if something becomes unforseeably out of control, the ruling body should 'pull it back' rather than sit on its hands and do nothing."

This is the kind of situation where another sport is relevant: the NHL changed the rules this year re: goalie equipment. They had to "pull it back" because goalies were taking liberties with some loopholes. The move was widely supported (albeit quietly, given that it's hockey). The NHL was right in pulling back that rule. Like it or not, the USGA is not omniscient. Sometimes equipment advances or even simple changes to the way people attempt to play the game, the way courses are set up or kept up, etc. change beyond the scope of what the USGA intended. To take your statement to an illogical extreme, we'd all be playing by the original rules, and our game would look nothing like what we currently know as "golf." In reality, the answer lies somewhere between "original rules only" and "omniscient rules-making in advance." I think the USGA's done a pretty good job of finding that balance.

I'm not being a "conspiracy theorist."

No, you just seem to think the USGA had rules that prevented blacks and women from being able to play golf.

You've had your say, and since you included racism in it, you're done in this thread. No more.