Dave Pelz's Short Game Bible.....

[dave.]

"Once you have the yardages, and a repeatable 7:30, 9:00, 10:30, the game from 100 and in gets quite easy"


Each to their own,I hate that mechanical way to hit a wedge,if I have to think where on the face to swing to I can't swing at all,I lose my routine and any sort of feel.Its fine on the range but on the course under some pressure its an awful system,or it is imho.If it works for you though fine.

And a 64 degree wedge is plain daft,should be banned

 

[LyleG]

"Once you have the yardages, and a repeatable 7:30, 9:00, 10:30, the game from 100 and in gets quite easy"
Each to their own,I hate that mechanical way to hit a wedge

Exactly. Do you think Payton Manning thinks about his arm position when trying to throw a 30 yard versus a 15 yard pass?

Its all about feel with wedges (heck any shot for that matter), and this imo is what separates the good players from the great players. Your eyes and your body must work as one, see the target and your body should just know how hard to swing.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

go by Peltz's teaching carry the 64* lob wedge? I have always had difficulty coming up with the right fourteen clubs for the courses I play, and I just cannot imagine a 64* lob wedge in my bag.

I own a 64* wedge that I bought when I first started, and before I ever read any of the Pelz books. It works great if you want to try and hit yourself in the forehead, completely slide under the ball without making contact, or even cutting a ball in half.

There has been alot of debate on here over time on the value of a 60* LW and what many feel goes hand in hand with handicap on whether you should carry one. I am pretty much done argueing that point any further. I carry a 52*, 56* and a 60*. They are definately the right clubs for me, and after good period of time and practice, and more importantly trial and error, the LW became an important part of my game once I learned when to keep it in the bag. I think this is more a characteristic of common sense and not golfing ability.

That being said, a 64* wedge is just completely insane in my opinion. You will never, EVER find one in my bag. Even as a beginning golfer I knew that was not a club I would ever try and learn to play. Although it is nice for indoor practice in swinging a club, while reading a book or something, where you are not really paying attention to where the ball is going or working on a grip and technique.

If someone else has found use for this club, more power to them. For the life of me I can't understand why Pelz pushes this club, it is one of his biggest flaws. Maybe because outside of his own wedges, the wilson that I have is the only other 64* I have seen on the market or in the store. I don't understand why he wouldn't recommend a 60* then possibly a 64* in time. Even though I carry one, I personally wouldn't "recommend" even a 60* wedge to someone, I think it is a decision you will have to make on your own on whether or not it will bring enough value to your game. For most it will likely cost you more than it adds, or at least in the beginning until you learn when not to use the club.

I also love his technical writing style, but to this point have not had the time to really practice the distance gauging mentioned in the short game bible. I am more consistent with what Dave. mentioned on this in having a pretty good "feel" for the distance to the pin. Anytime I am inside 75~80 yards, I likely couldn't tell you the distance, and produce shots more on feel. And even though I like his technical nature, and alot of his points, I am inclined to believe I may never commit to this mechanical style of golf.

 

[SiberianDVM]

Sunday, when my game was rained out, I went to the range. I spent a fair amount of time hitting wedges: 47*, 52*, 56*, 60*.

Sometimes when I'm playing, I hit wedges fat, which is a real killer, so I spent my time trying to make clean contact. I remembered a Titleist TV ad where one of the pros says to put 70% of your weight on your left side and keep it there for these partial wedge shots. Sure enough, it works. Clean contact, and straight shots.

Now if I can only remember that when I'm playing.

 

[Poe4soul]

With the Manning analogy you should only use one club and vary your address and hand positions to get the loft of the club and trajectory of the shot – maybe a 7 iron from tee to green?
People have different approaches, technical vs feel but most are a combination of the two. From the sounds of it you lean more toward being a feel player. I would estimate I’m 40* technical and 60* feel. I’ll look at the shot, use a portion of Pelz’ theory to pick an appropriate club for the distance, pin placement, and carry and then visualize the shot. Take a few practice swings to get the feel of the shot and approach the ball. I don’t let the technical part rule. If I’m not comfortable with the club or the shot I will bail out and find an approach I am comfortable with.

To me his advice is a jumping off point. It’s well planned as just as an engineer would approach the game. If you lean toward a feel player than anything that is technical in approach would be foreign to you. In fact a feel player should run before letting a technical teacher get into his head and admittedly in Pelz' book players have done just that. They are feel players and want nothing to do with approaching the game with technical side. This does not mean that his approach does not have merit.

I don't agree that it is "all about feel." Tiger uses a technical approach but he also has great feel. I bet he knows what distance each club is on a full, 3/4 and 1/2 swing.

 

[Sandy]

That being said, a 64* wedge is just completely insane in my opinion. You will never, EVER find one in my bag.

So you won't be buying one of these then?

http://www.clubmaker-online.com/feel.73.html

I own a 64* wedge too, that I bought for $4 off eBay, and have only ever used once on the course - and that was the day I forgot to check my bag before I headed off and had to play a round with a 48*, 56* and 64* wedges by mistake.

Loads of fun on the range to take massive swings with and see how much spin you can get, but seem about as useful for a real round as those 'chipper' clubs...

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

So you won't be buying one of these then?

http://www.clubmaker-online.com/feel.73.html

I can do better than that. This is the one I like to use to show what may be a little to much loft. May work great to skin or filet fish and wildlife in the kitchen though
http://www.xfactordirect.com/wedges.htm

This is a site for Jack Hamm "hammer" driver, I guess if you hit a driver 400+ yards and can only manage full swings, you need a wedge that to complete those 5 yard pitches on a full swing.

 

[Sandy]

I can do better than that. This is the one I like to use to show what may be a little to much loft. May work great to skin or filet fish and wildlife in the kitchen though
http://www.xfactordirect.com/wedges.htm

I wonder if in the world of wedge design there is the same race going on that they had in Driver design, where they wanted to max out the size, MOI and COR limits. Surely somewhere there's a mad engineer sat in his garage working on a 89* wedge, for those tricky shots where you're on the fringe of the green 1ft away from the hole but still want to take a full swing?

:faintthud

 

[benk]

fasdf

Dave we totally agree!!! I think the mechanical way to hit hte wedge is @#$%%#$@%@%!!! There is not good wedge players that do this, and I also believe that there are no great iron players that play totally mechanical.

 

[Nyper]

Wow. I can't believe there are so many people bashing the 64* wedge.

I've never read any of the Pelz books... but I have carried a 64* wedge for the past 8 years.

I am much more comfortable hitting a strong 64* wedge from 70 yards than I am trying to hit a softer 56* wedge. To me, the 64* is worth its weight in gold when I have a pitch shot over a mound, a downhill pitch, or a pitch over a bunker. It is also the only club I use from a greenside bunker. I guess it's something I got used to, and I love it.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

Wow. I can't believe there are so many people bashing the 64* wedge.

I've never read any of the Pelz books... but I have carried a 64* wedge for the past 8 years.

I am much more comfortable hitting a strong 64* wedge from 70 yards than I am trying to hit a softer 56* wedge. To me, the 64* is worth its weight in gold when I have a pitch shot over a mound, a downhill pitch, or a pitch over a bunker. It is also the only club I use from a greenside bunker. I guess it's something I got used to, and I love it.

Again, I see nothing wrong with a person carrying one if it helps their game and brings them enjoyment.

In the same sense I see nothing wrong with someone carrying a 6* Driver or 1 iron in their bag if it serves the same purpose. Just realize it is not necessarily the correct choice for possibly the majority of golfers. I guess my question would be, based on my experience with both my 60* that I carry, and my 64* that I never will.

Would you recommend it to every golfer as a matter to improve your score???

Or do you have enough experience with the club to know that even if you have one in your bag, you may realize it will not help everyone?

Just seems strange to me that Pelz recommends this club to most anyone who reads his book. In the same sense if he recommended everyone carry a 1 Iron. This coming from someone who likes the guy.

edit 1 - It also brings up the other question, would it provide more value to your bag than another club. My biggest stipulation on still carrying a 60* LW is usage. For me I use it more than either my 5i or 3w, and it costs me fewer strokes. There is no way in my lifetime I picture saying the same about a 64*. I guess if I were permitted to carry an unlimited number of clubs, as opposed to just 14, I could possibly find use for a 64*, but not more than a 60*, 5i or 3w. In the same since, I find value with my LW on the 75~80 yard shot, as you mentioned with 70 yards. I can further regulate it like no other club in my bag from 40~70 yards on the small greens I am used too, whereas many would say they could do the same with a 56*.

 

[dave.]

The problem with the clockface approach to wedges is that its a quick fix imo,you can get it with some practice but you will nevcer be 'great'.the reason being you are relying on getting to say 10 oclock,and yet 30% of the shots will not be close,so what next,try and get yourself to 9.50,9.56,or 10.01? It simply cannot be as good as feel,think about it,think what the human brain is capable of yet you want to remove from a golf shot and try and use a clock face? Its madness,it makes no sense at all.I trust my brain to drive my car,I don't make deliberate actions,they just happen.Same with a wedge,if you educate yoruself to use feel you will nbever restrict your own brain,you will be as good as you want to be.

 

[Sandy]

Wow. I can't believe there are so many people bashing the 64* wedge.

I can imagine for a much more skilled player than me it could be very useful, especially if you know the courses you're going to play well and they have places that need extreme lofted shots. For me there was very little the 64* gave me that a 60* couldn't, and even the 60 is a contentious inclusion in my bag at times.

I think the 73* and 80* are taking it a bit far though. With just 14 clubs in the bag, how often would you make an approach shot that merited such a specialist club instead of a manufactured shot with another wedge?

That said, I'd love to see what hitting a ball with that 80* wedge felt like! It must feel like topping a hard-boiled egg!

 

[cypressperch]

I am not against the idea of having short

shots based on points on a clock. You practice those different length back-swings until you have FEEL for them. Certainly you do not want to have much, if anything, going on in your conscious mind in the execution of any shot. There is far too much going on and going on to fast to consciously think about it. You visualize the shot, line the shot up, pull the trigger all the while TRUSTING YOUR SWING.

Actually, I left out one step that works for almost anyone that tries it. You make a practice swing or two of the shot you have just visualized. This gets the subconscious and the body set for the shot at hand. You do not have to start the shot completely cold. You have practiced this shot hundreds of times (or something similar), and as a result you have developed "muscle memory" which is activated for a specific shot by making that practice swing. Now when you pull the trigger, you have made it easier for the subconscious to execute the shot.

Incidentally, the term muscle memory is a bit inaccurate. There is no real memory in the muscle. The memory is in the nervous system, the brain. But it still has to do with those muscles. You use the muscles as you train the brain, and then the brain controls the muscles as you execute the shot. Thus it is that a little high quality practice is better than lots of mindless beating golfballs. The more mentally ingaged you are during practice, the more likely you will be able to TRUST YOUR SWING.

So I do favor learning the FEEL of a small number of back-swing lengths. It is still feel, but I think it makes it a little easier on the sub-conscious. A person is not a robot, so it stands to reason that we should avoid being overly mechanical. Likewise, we are probably incapable of being totally animal thanks to being civilized to the degree we have become (pardon my getting into Freud). I think people are bound to the need for training in order to have a golf swing. This required training takes place when we practice, when we drill, and such. But when we actually make a swing, we really should be something of an animal in that we do not think during the swing. We are a trained animal!!! When you try to hit a drive 400 yards, you are just an animal. When you constrain your animalistic urges and use 80% of your power after consciously (like a good human) planning your shot, you execute the shot as a trained animal. If overly human, you are going from the animal extreme too much towards the robotic, overly mechanistic extreme.

Incidentally, the clock face concept is common knowledge with tour players, and some (Tom Lehmann comes to mind.) do use it. I am confident that they would also say that you do not want to throw away the role of FEEL and become overly mechanistic.

And I still say that with four or five wedges, there is a lot of close similarity in the results of using a few different swings with those different wedges. So similar are these shots, that I doubt if anyone could consistently hit 12 different shots (four wedges and three back-swing lengths) that all had different distances.

Lastly, there is a very simple way to get many different trajectories from the same swing length and the same club. Certainly you can change the ball position in the stance. But another way is to address the ball, then look (with head swiveling but still in its place at address) at the highest point of the flight path you want the ball to take. When it is a very high flight, your right shoulder will drop and your left shot will rise. Keep that shoulder position, and your shot will be that height. Want a low shot, do the same and now when you look at the highest point it will be far lower than with the high shot. Your left shoulder will be far lower; the right shoulder far higher. Make your swing, and you will have a lower shot. In time, you will develop a FEEL for this.

If you want to develop FEEL, you first consciously train. The better the training the better the swing becomes and the more FEEL that is developed. Good training involves a lot, but you want to always have a target. You want to vary your target often. You want to vary the club used often. You want to develop a consistent tempo. And the more rhythmetic you can make your swing, the better.

Sincerely, Cypressperch

 

[dave.]

I agree,as long as you are hitting to a target at the range with different wedges you will learn distance control.Tom Kite could hit a wedge and call the distance out loud before he lifted his head,purely from feel.His caddie would measure it out and see,it was Kite's way of training himself to trust his feel.