As most of you realize by now, I’m a big proponent of the type of short game that Dave Pelz advocates.

Not only do I recommend his books, but I enjoy his articles in Golf Magazine each month. In the February 2010 issue, he wrote an article about choosing wedge lofts wisely.  It kind of centered around the new wedge groove rule changes and, as usual, was full of great facts and advice.

One thing kind of caught my attention, though, and I’m not sure I’m fully on board.  Because of the lessened spin resulting from new groove regulations, he points out that players can expect around 50% less spin from the rough and about 20% less spin from the fairway for wedges of comparable lofts.

He goes on to point out that to stop shots on the greens as effectively, players will have to adopt higher and softer trajectories than what we’re used to producing.  And, he says, there are two ways to do that:  either  open the faces to current wedges to produce high flop/cut shots, or get wedges with higher lofts.  He adds that it’s easier to hit shots straight and control the distance with a square club face than it is with an open-faced cut shot.

This is where I’m kind of torn.  Believe me, I don’t doubt that Pelz can show that, scientifically, hitting those little cut lob shots is not as reliable as hitting something with a square club face.  But, I also think there’s something to be said for developing the creativity that comes along with hitting all kinds of shots with each wedge.

As you may know, Dave Pelz is a proponent of a 4×3 system, where the goal is to carry 4 wedges, and to groove 3 distinct short game swings with each, thereby giving you twelve absolutely grooved, reliable, distances within wedge range.  I talked a little more about Pelz’s 4×3 system and why it works when I reviewed his Short Game Bible, which you can check out for more background.

When it comes to finesse wedge shots, I can certainly agree with using that system.  I’ll be the first to say that if your 9 o’clock sand wedge swing produces a shot of 50 yards, then trying to open the face of your pitching wedge to hit that distance with the same swing isn’t a great plan.

But let’s talk about shots from within your shortest 4×3 distance.  We’ll say for the sake of argument that we’re talking about shots 25 yards and shorter.  I will agree with Pelz that, all things being equal, hitting a 15-yard pitch with a square face will produce a more consistent shot over numerous attempts than if you have to open the club face of a less lofted wedge some amount to hit a higher, softer shot to produce a shot of the same distance.

Naturally, introducing a second variable (an open club face) adds some degree of inconsistency because the best we can do is make a guess of how much the face is open and it won’t likely be the same each time, whereas we can probably get the club face closer to square each time (even though it usually won’t be perfectly square).

I get all that.

At the same time, I think there is some benefit to being able to take out a single club and produce a nearly infinite number of shots within a certain distance.  And maybe that doesn’t even mean taking those shots to the course.  Maybe on the course, it’s best to just stick with the shots Pelz recommends for maximum consistency.

I believe there is, however, a certain confidence and comfort that comes with being able to take a wedge out of your bag and feel like you can do anything with it, even if your intent is only to produce a vanilla, square-faced, short pitch.

I think I kind of felt that a little last spring as I was putting in my foundational practice green work for the year.  To mix things up, I would spend 20 minutes or so with each of my four wedges.  I would hit all the plain square-face chips that I could, to various targets around the green.  I was working on my basic stance and swing and all that, and getting a feel for how each club reacted for those shots.  How high did the ball fly?  Did the shots check at all?  How far did the ball fly for a given swing length?

I also spent a lot of time with each club hitting shots that I might not normally attempt.  I would find a pin that was only a couple of paces on the green and drop the ball in the fringe and see if I could hit a little lob and stop it close.  I would bury the ball in the rough and try the same shot.  I would drop the ball on the fringe and try to keep the ball lower by de-lofting the club some.  I would address the ball with my hands back some to see if the shot came out higher and more softly.

I believe that spending so much time doing that gave me an extreme comfort with my wedges from just off the greens.  My stats don’t really show me getting up and down a lot last year, but in fairness, I usually wasn’t just off the greens because I was struggling with swing troubles for a while and as the summer wore on, I spent less time working around the practice green and more time on the practice tee.

However, early in the year, my confidence from just off the green was at an all time high, and I can’t help but wonder if that was the result of trading a little art for science around the practice green.

Even though we might practice a wide variety of shots around the practice green, normally, that can’t match the infinite combination of possible situations we face on the course.  I might hit 50 balls from three paces off the green to a pin five paces onto the surface, but did I hit any where I was three paces off the green to a pin that was three paces on?  Maybe not.

What I did, though, was practice all sorts of shots with my wedges so that when I encountered a shot on the course that was a little different from what I might have practiced, I was still very confident because I felt like I could vary what I was doing with hand position, club face, swing length, etc. and not feel totally out of sorts wondering what the result would be.

It could be that all I did was find a way to give myself a little false confidence.  Maybe I would have enjoyed the same confidence and even more success by just sticking with grooving a consistent, repeatable swing and not trying to concern myself with hitting all sorts of wacky shots with my wedges.

What do you all think?  Is there a benefit to mixing in a good bit of art with all of the science?  Or do you think that keeping it consistent and repeatable is better in the long run?  I’d love to hear how you all approach that segment of the game.

Did you like this post? Get free RSS updates!

Leave a comment | Comment Policy | Trackback URL