Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Boyder

Wedge Bending

Note: This thread is 3361 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

12 posts / 1642 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

I'm thinking I would like to have my 52 strengthened to 50 as this would give me a better spread distance/degree-wise. Are there drawbacks to having a wedge bent that much? Is it even possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

So if the wedge currently has 8* bounce, that would give me 6* ... what is "standard" for a 50* wedge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the wedge currently has 8* bounce, that would give me 6* ... what is "standard" for a 50* wedge?

8* would be "standard", but if you don't use it for shots around the green (by that I mean you use it only for full shots) I doubt you will see a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I did this with my 52-8 vokey and I have no complaints. I use my 56* around the green, but willat time use my "52" with no problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What type of fairways do your normally play. The fairways in the Central Wisconsin area, Lake Arrowhead, Trappers Turn, Wild Rock, University Ridges, The Oaks, Sentry World , Lawsonia etc tend to be on the firm side. I get along with a 6* bounce on my 52* wedge fine. I've actually played this club at 50* with a 4* bounce and it worked.

If the fairways are more like The Bull or other moist clay based ground where it is easy to take a beaver pelt divot then a higher bounce of 8*/10* would be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What type of fairways do your normally play. The fairways in the Central Wisconsin area, Lake Arrowhead, Trappers Turn, Wild Rock, University Ridges, The Oaks, Sentry World , Lawsonia etc tend to be on the firm side. I get along with a 6* bounce on my 52* wedge fine. I've actually played this club at 50* with a 4* bounce and it worked.

Normally the fairways around here are pretty firm ... altho with all the rain this summer everything is a bit on the mushy side.

It's not a real expensive wedge so I think I'm going to try to have it done and see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah - the way they build PW's these days - mine is so strong (44*) it leaves quite a gap between the PW & the GW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your PW is 44*, the bend would leave you with 50* and 56* ... 6-degree gaps between most wedges. Just test out the "set" after bending to see what yardage distances are on partials.

If you do get your GW bent, clubsmiths advise you to check it out at the end of each season: The metal sometimes creeps back to 52* over time.

BTW, 44* was the loft of my 9I in my old set of irons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'm thinking I would like to have my 52 strengthened to 50 as this would give me a better spread distance/degree-wise. Are there drawbacks to having a wedge bent that much? Is it even possible?

My MP-11s have lofts bent from 40, 44, 48 (8 iron to PW) to 40, 45, and 50. I didn't like the added bounce on the PW, so I had my favourite GW, which was obsoleted by the 50 degree PW, bent from 52* to 50.5. I wanted a specifically 120 +/- 5 yard wedge. It's pure gold - I love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: This thread is 3361 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2019 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
  • Posts

    • Within the past few years, we've had topics of discussion surrounding the idea and practice of girls playing in boys tournaments in high school golf. To recap: In this topic, a 14-year-old 8th grader won the boys state championship in Delaware competing from 85% of the distance. Delaware at the time didn't have a separate tournament for girls as there were apparently not many girls at all playing. They noted that they have hope to have enough girls to some day have a separate girls tournament. The girls competed on the "team" as well, and the team won too. In this instance, boys play in the fall, and girls play in the spring. The high school for which this girl played doesn't have a girls team, so she's eligible to play for the boys team, and still compete in the regional and state events in the spring for the girls. She played from shorter tees than the boys, and her team did not win/advance. And again, she could compete in the spring against other girls from the same tees. In PIAA, apparently, we have two sisters in the WPIAL (a Pittsburgh area league) that compete for Carmichaels. The school doesn't have a girls golf team, and there's apparently a PIAA rule that says that only one girl from each school can compete in the girls championship (districts, regionals, and then states). Remmey competed for the girls as a freshman and sophomore. Her year-older sister Delaney competed on the boys side those two years but didn't get out of her district (the WPIAL). This year, they put Delaney (a senior this year) through the girls so she'd have a better chance of going to States, and Remmey (junior) went through the boys track. These are individual tournaments, not the team events, which are run separately. I believe they both play on the boys team for Carmichaels. Anyway, Remmey (in the boys track) shot 72 playing from 85% of the distance that the boys played to finish second. The top 22 of 44 players advanced. Her sister, Delaney, shot 90 to miss the playoff to move on to states for AA girls by two. Club House Leaderboard - Scrolf.com Get real-time leaderboard and mobile scoring for your next golf event or league. Works on any mobile device with no app downloads. Here's the first story: Sisters Remmey and Delaney Lohr to compete in WPIAL golf finals — for girls and boys Carmichaels junior Remmey Lohr placed third in the WPIAL girls golf finals last year, but this year she’s competing on the boys side. Here's the second: Carmichaels golfer Remmey Lohr qualifies for PIAA boys championships Lohr used an eagle to place second at the PIAA western regional qualifier. My stance on this stuff remains the same. If a girl CHOOSES to compete against boys (when there's a girl's team available, or a girls track), when she has an alternative, she should be allowed to compete so long as it's on actually equal terms. That means the same tees. This basically treats the boys division as "open." I'm also fine if the rules simply say "boys" and don't allow girls to compete at all for individual titles. For teams, I think the 85% is a good compromise, because some teams literally might not even have enough players to compete if they don't allow girls to play for them, and that would hurt more people than allowing girls to play. Still, these girls should compete through the girls individual track, if available, not the boys. Unless, again, they made a choice to play for the boys when an alternative (girls) was available. Should a girl playing quarterback for the high school team only have to advance the ball 8.5 yards for a first down? Should a girl playing on a boys basketball team get a second, lower basket because girls aren't generally as tall as boys? Should a girls high school pitcher that chooses to play baseball get to pitch from, oh, 50 feet instead? P.S. It's not said above, but the best fix here is to adjust the "one girl" rule. Adjust that, and this isn't an issue. Why penalize girls who don't have a girls team by only allowing one of them to qualify, when four or five girls from a high school with a program could all qualify?
    • I think it's fun. You get to take runs at every hole because every chip shot becomes much easier, and even if not that, you get to take a run at the resulting putt. It's fun to push it to the limit sometimes in order to see how low you can go.
    • That's a very specific scenario covered by the rules. He would be DQed for a serious breach of Rule 14-7b for playing from the wrong place. I take your point, but there really isn't much of a difference between a DQ and 58 penalty strokes.
    • Where have you been? 🙂 Remember? She made a 5 and wrote down (signed for) a 4. She knows what score she had, and signed for a lower one. This isn't the same thing. Because Dave got it wrong. You're DQed for a lower score, you take the higher score. Well, she got 58 penalty strokes, so… It's not like she just got away with it or something. Again, did you miss that whole conversation in the topic I posted up above? You didn't, because you replied in it. He'd be DQed for playing from a wrong place. Such an act can't be "rectified" by correcting the scorecard. Rule 1 says this: That would be such a case. The scorecard could not be adjusted sufficiently because the ball was literally not played from anywhere near where it should have been.
    • I guess I just don't understand why the penalty for that infraction is DQ (especially since in that case she wasn't gaining an advantage since she signed for a higher score) but the penalty for breaking a different rule 29 times over two different days is just the applicable penalty strokes simply because the golfer "didn't know the rules".  I get that they are completely different rules about completely different scenarios, I just don't think it's right that a golfer can break the same rule 29 times over 2 different rounds and not be DQ'ed simply because they didnt know they were breaking a rule. To that point, let's say there was a newer golfer in a tournament and he hit multiple balls out of bounds throughout the round but played them as red staked hazards because he didn't know any better, but then it was discovered after the round and after signing the scorecard that he had played them as such, does that mean he would only get the applicable penalty strokes added to his score instead of being DQ'ed simply because he didn't know it was a rule that white stakes are treated differently than red stakes? That doesn't seem right IMO.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. boxofballs
      boxofballs
      (45 years old)
    2. CaptainsChoice
      CaptainsChoice
      (33 years old)
    3. Dozer
      Dozer
      (56 years old)
    4. Pcorys
      Pcorys
      (34 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...