[jeffwarne]

Jeff...

I think you make a great point here.  

"I would argue that while the evolution of the sand wedge was important,post Golden age improved maintenance caused by expectations , as well as dumbing down of bunkers(in this case often caused by less money due to the depression and expectations), had more effect on architects feeling the need to use other hazards such as water to stifle recovery."

At least for me, the maintenance issues are really hard to visualize.  Most of the courses I've played have pretty well maintained and manicured bunkers.  Therefore, it is hard for me to appreciate how hard some of the non-well maintained (is that even a word/phrase?!?) were to get out of.  In fact, I'd bet a lot of us can't fully appreciate the differences in bunkers between the eras.

The only perspective I have is when I played Aiken.  Many of the bunkers didn't have rakes in them and they appeared just to be as nature kept them.  Here is a picture of Mark Pritchett's lie in a fairway bunker.  He had a LONG approach shot into the green that, in addition to the issues with the lie, played uphill.  Wow!!

Mac,
It's easy to visualize.
Come up to eastern long island and quite tee it up this week. (don't mind the wind chill in the teens)
bunkers unraked for 6+ weeks
you get what you get and you don't scream "get in the bunker"
now visualize getting it out with a niblick (although I would argue that there was plenty of loft on the old clubs(not hard to open a club with minimal bounce), just not enough bounce for soft sand-(particularly for unskilled players)

[Jud_T]

So from a GCA point of view, was the development and approval of the sand wedge a positive or negative development?

[jeffwarne]

So from a GCA point of view, was the development and approval of the sand wedge a positive or negative development?

nothing wrong with the sand wedge, just the dumbing down of bunkers, creating the need for so many,followed by using water because sand no longer presented a real hazard (due to maintenance and dumbing)

[Tom_Doak]

Strangely, bunkers started becoming more manicured well AFTER the prevalence of the sand wedge.  Before 1950 or so bunkers were seldom raked.

The USGA did a bunch of interviews with the elders of golf back in the late 1980's, and many of them (including Byron Nelson and Mickey Wright) volunteered unprompted that the biggest change in the game was the level of maintenance of golf courses.  None of them that I can recall saw it as a bad thing, though.

[RSLivingston_III]

Personally, I feel the wedge might have changed things in architecture more because of what it allowed in and around the greens in controlled lofted pitches and chips.
In greenside bunker shots it probably made shots easier for the lesser player, but top level players could make any kind of shot you could have imagined using their choice from the existing equipment. As has been mentioned, proficiency was more a matter of the amount of practice. There were different niblicks for the varying maintenance situations. If what we have left in clubs is indicative of what people were using, there is a good chance players acquired niblicks with sole width characteristics that meet the players needs. By the twenties, I believe many accomplished players were carrying two niblicks, one for pitching and the other for bunker play. The bunker version having a sole width approaching 3/4", the other being less than 1/2".
A wide sole niblick and a few hours practice will yield surprising results that give some indication of what was actually taking place.
There is also in-era documentation available...

[jeffwarne]

Personally, I feel the wedge might have changed things in architecture more because of what it allowed in and around the greens in controlled lofted pitches and chips.
In greenside bunker shots it probably made shots easier for the lesser player, but top level players could make any kind of shot you could have imagined. As has been mentioned, proficiency was more a matter of the amount of practice. There were different niblicks for the varying maintenance situations. If what we have left in clubs is indicative of what people were using, there is a good chance players acquired niblicks with sole width characteristics that meet the players needs. By the twenties, I believe many accomplished players were carrying two niblicks, one for pitching and the other for bunker play. The bunker version having a sole width approaching 3/4", the other being less than 1/2".
A wide sole niblick and a few hours practice will yield surprising results that give some indication of what was actually taking place.
There is also in-era documentation available...

I would agree with that.
I have a limited arsenel of hickory clubs, but I didn't find much difficulty using the niblick in a variety of situations and its' loft was closer to a gap wedge than a nine iron and when opened can be used for variety of pitches or even lobs. It's excellent in firmer sand, buried or cuppy lies, and is only inferior in softer raked sand.
Certainly someone out there prior to Sarazen recognized that a wider sole would work better (particularly when opened) in softer sand and/or tight wet turf (and made such a niblick available?)

[RSLivingston_III]

There were a number of flanged niblicks made, dating back to around the turn of the century.
It should be noted that Sarazan didn't invent the Sand Wedge, at best he invented the modern Sand Wedge, and that is arguable. People would be very surprised to see some of the clubs that were available. The first use of the word wedge in a clubs name had to have been the Hagen Concave Sand Wedge -circa1930-, approximately five years before Sarazan. The niblick made by the PGA Co. is as close to a 60's era Dynapower wedge as you will ever see. and there are many others.

[Mac Plumart]

I think Ralph and Jeff (again) bring up some good points.

I suppose I am not talking about a sand wedge specifically.  I am talking about the continued development of the niblick to, essentially, a de facto sand wedge.  This development had to make the game easier and bunkers less of a threat.  Of course, Ralph (and other hickory experts) please chime in and continue to educate me and others as neccessary.

Here is a link to Louiseville golf replica 1925 56 degree niblick.  http://www.louisvillegolf.com/index.php/cPath/53_172
To me, this is essentially a sand wedge.  I could get out of bunkers with this thing with no issues.  No doubt about it. 

This is the 1890's replica I am using. 









To me the difference is huge and is a game changer. 

[Wade Schueneman]

While it appears that the SW had a significant historical impact, I agree with Gambers that the impact is at least diminished today.  I am not a great bunker player, but I have played for most of my life without a sand wedge, and never had problems getting out of bunkers with a modern wedge or 9 iron.  However, I have hit some bunker shots with Mac's hickory wedge ("niblick" I think) and that was indeed challenging for me (not impossible, but challenging).  

[Mac Plumart]

Wade...

I've just been informed that the club I posted is most likely a replica of an 1893 Lofter.  I believe there is a photo and some detail on it in Tom Stewart Cleek and Iron Maker, by GCA's own RS Livingston III.

[Pat Burke]

Pat Burke,did Seve's peers consider his bunker game other worldly?

I once caddied in his group during a Pro Am.I watched him hit ~ 10 bunker shots before the round.I swear 5 other Pro's were watching and were as amazed as I was.

Whenever Seve did things around short game practice areas, a lot of guys watched.   His bunker play was pretty magic.
Azinger once said Gary Player was a great bunker player, because he made every FU*%$ng 8 footer he had!

Watching Seve was watching an artist around greens.  You saw what he was doing, went to practice, trying the things he did, and got pissed when you couldn't!

[RSLivingston_III]

Mac,

FYI, the original of that club would have been one of a few clubs that the average player of the day might have used from a bunker, it just wasn't necessarily intended for that use - it would see a number of other uses. The 'average' player of the last few decades of the 1800's might have carried only three clubs, or as few as one. The average well heeled R&A member might have a half dozen or more - or less, clubs in their kit. The shops were not selling formalized sets back then. A player went out and found clubs they liked and added them into their sets until they built up something that fit their game. I think most people would find they don't need more than 4-5 clubs once they have been acclimated to the gutty era. And probably would find a niblick is not needed if they were playing the greens of the day. You didn't have the run-out of today. So taking one of your irons and just blasting the ball out and onto the green will give you a putt because it will typically just die where it landed.

[Doug Siebert]

Perhaps substantial because gca caters to the top 1%.  Within my peer group I am considered to be a good player out of the sand, and better than average with the putter.  Yet, I get up and down from the sand around 20% of the time, so to me, I steer away from the bunkers.  If what Tom D notes is true (greater use of water), maybe that's part of the reason why the avg handicap is mostly unchanged for years despite more user-friendly equipment.

What's your up and down percentage in general?  How about from odd lies in deep rough around the green?  (For those courses where a missed green leaves either a sand shot for a shot from deep rough, often with an awkward lie)

For some reason I've kind of lost my touch from the sand the last couple years - maybe because I don't practice and haven't played much - but previous to that on courses with rough around the greens, I figured there isn't really any appreciable difference in my success rate getting up and down whether I was in a bunker or the rough.  I don't get up and down from the sand 50% of the time like the pros, but that's fine, because I can't do that from outside the bunker either

[Doug Siebert]

Let's not forget the other important ways that the sand wedge has affected golf and GCA:

1. It drastically shortens the distance from which you have to play a half or 3/4 shot.  I hit a regular blade sand wedge a comfy 110. I hit a regular blade PW a comfy 135.  So the mere addition of the SW means I can make a full swing down to about 90 yards (choke it down; swing smooth). If I had no SW and the lowest lofted club in my bag was 47 degrees, I'd only be able to go down to about 115 before I had to make a 3/4 swing, as opposed to chiking down and swinging smooth with a full swing.  That's a big difference that enables a player to (A) play more aggressively off the tee, (B) put more spin on the ball more often; (C) go after more pins without fear of run-out for lack of spin; and (D) not have to fear being in the rough within that 25 yard gap (who here can hit and stop a smooth 3/4 shot, even with a highly lofted club, from the rough?  It's hard enough from the FW!).  The SW definitely fosters more aggressive play from the tee on shorter to mid-range holes, where driver/PW or SW is a legitimate play. 

2.  It also obviously fosters aggressive play on very short par 4's. If a hole is 310, I can take a poke at it worry a lot less about (A) pin high short side misses; (B) dumping it in a greenside bunker: (C) whiffing it a little and leaving myself a 40-50 yard approach (granted, it's a 3/4 shot, but you ought to be able to get it closee than you would with a PW).

3.  In conjunction with the 14 club limit, it KILLED the 2 wood, which changed the tee ball decision on a lot of holes.

4.  Probably most importantly, it makes the flop shot from rough FAR less risky. The bounce cuts the margin of error significantly.

5. Conversely, it makes the really wide-open flop shot from tight lies, even some fairway lies, even riskier. I think that's an underappreciated element of the SW. .

You act as though without the sand wedge, no one would have ever invented a club with more loft than a pitching wedge.  I think the lob wedge provides proof that this is not the case.  So even if the USGA had immediately ruled against Sarazen's innovation and we were using some sort of traditional wedge (of whatever loft) from the sand, all of what you posted above would still be true for the higher lofted wedges that would have come about anyway.

Well, except #5, though personally I prefer my SW over my LW for such shots because I use an LW with a huge flange, a very heavy club.  That makes flop shots from the rough a breeze, and I simply don't try to hit anything longer than about 45 or 50 yards with it.  Because man, does that ball shoot like a rocket if you blade a full shot with a clubhead that heavy!

[Jamie Barber]

I think Sarazen's wedge was controversial at the time, apparently his caddy was instructed to keep it upside down in his bag before the tournament so no-one else would see it.

The club was donated to Prince's where he first used it, although it's not on display but kept in safe storage (I asked our secretary as I wanted to see it!)

[JMEvensky]

Pat Burke,did Seve's peers consider his bunker game other worldly?

I once caddied in his group during a Pro Am.I watched him hit ~ 10 bunker shots before the round.I swear 5 other Pro's were watching and were as amazed as I was.

Whenever Seve did things around short game practice areas, a lot of guys watched.   His bunker play was pretty magic.
Azinger once said Gary Player was a great bunker player, because he made every FU*%$ng 8 footer he had!

Watching Seve was watching an artist around greens.  You saw what he was doing, went to practice, trying the things he did, and got pissed when you couldn't!

Thanks.

I got the feeling that they were almost embarrassed to be part of the "gallery".But,as you said,5 minutes after SB left the practice bunker,they'd try to hit the same shots.

Same thing with Ben Crenshaw on the putting green.A lot of guys seemed to do more watching than practicing.

[Lou_Duran]

What's your up and down percentage in general?  How about from odd lies in deep rough around the green?  (For those courses where a missed green leaves either a sand shot for a shot from deep rough, often with an awkward lie)

For some reason I've kind of lost my touch from the sand the last couple years - maybe because I don't practice and haven't played much - but previous to that on courses with rough around the greens, I figured there isn't really any appreciable difference in my success rate getting up and down whether I was in a bunker or the rough.  I don't get up and down from the sand 50% of the time like the pros, but that's fine, because I can't do that from outside the bunker either

I don't keep that stat, but, typically, I'd rather try to get up and down from the rough than a bunker.  I don't have a hard time getting out of bunkers, but I think that I have a greater success rate pitching and chipping.  I do practice less out of bunkers, but I am also in them less often during play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I haven't read any prior posts, but, the impact was very substantial.

As a related topic, I think the L-Wedge had an equal impact.

Both, eroded the ferocity of the defenses at the green and allowed golfers to become more aggressive in attacking hole locations.

[Pete Lavallee]

Pat,

You imply that the L-wedge was invented to help golfers deal with deep bunkers and greenside rough; didn't golf courses always have deep bunkers and greenside rough? I thought the L-wedrge was invented to give the player the ability to hit full swing shots from distances inside 120 yards. Wasn't Tom Kite the first PGA Tour pro to put the 4th wedge in the bag? Certainly it made a great difference in his scoring average and winning percentage.

[Ken Moum]

Pat,

You imply that the L-wedge was invented to help golfers deal with deep bunkers and greenside rough; didn't golf courses always have deep bunkers and greenside rough? I thought the L-wedrge was invented to give the player the ability to hit full swing shots from distances inside 120 yards. Wasn't Tom Kite the first PGA Tour pro to put the 4th wedge in the bag? Certainly it made a great difference in his scoring average and winning percentage.

All of that is probably true, but I can also attest that among my collection of about 125 wedges I have several from the 30s, 40s and 50s, and among them there are a handful that had ~60* of loft.

K

[Mac Plumart]

I personally find the essence of this thread to be fascinating and I think understanding this essence provides excellent context when studying golf course architecture.  Specifically, the context regarding the catalysts for changes to golf course architecture.

This thread focused on the sand wedge and I kicked off the responses talking about my replica 1893 50 degree lofter and the continued development of the niblick to, essentially, a de facto sand wedge.  To me,  this development had to make the game easier and bunkers less of a threat.

But other disagreed with the importance of the sand wedge specifically, while others thought the L-Wedge had an equal impact.  Regardless, I think this thread really touches on the effect technology has had on the game.  And to me these technological changes have, primarily, been the catalyst for change regarding golf course architecture.

Of course, we have the golf ball itself.  Featherie, gutty, haskell, balata, modern ball.  MASSIVE impact on the game of golf.

Then we have shafts…hickory, steel, graphite.

We’ve also got the wedges (as discussed), irons, hybrids, persimmon woods, metal woods, 460cc drivers.  

I believe all of these things effectively changed the game and, therefore, required changes to the playing field of the game…that is, the courses themselves.

Of course, more and more distance is needed.  Fairways get pinched, rough is grown up, bunkers are deepend, greens are sped up, water hazards are needed.  Why?  To try to defend the courses against technology.  Right?

But isn’t it inherent in mankind to progress, improve, conquer, and subdue opponents, obstacles, and challengers?  So, this technology race will never end.  

So, will golf course architecture always evolve?  And right now that evolution seems to be longer courses, faster greens, and deeper rough.  More penal architecture, right?  This just seems like the wrong path to be going down.  

I think back to last years majors.  Pebble didn’t really look like the Pebble I’ve read about.  Whistling Straits with all those crazy bunkers.  We all know the changes made to Augusta.  And St. Andrews seemed to be a bit tweaked, but still looked pretty darn good to me.  Am I wrong about that?  Does St. Andrews have something special that we need to be focused more on?

Sorry for the length of this, just thinking about technology and the game and where we seem to be headed.

[Niall C]

Ralph

What about the introduction of grooves in irons, did that have an effect ? I think it was the 1920's in the US that they became prevalent, would that be right ?

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You imply that the L-wedge was invented to help golfers deal with deep bunkers and greenside rough;

I think that's what you infered.

didn't golf courses always have deep bunkers and greenside rough?

Some did and the Sand-Wedge wasn't able to meet the challenge on firm, fast greens with difficult hole locations.

I thought the L-wedrge was invented to give the player the ability to hit full swing shots from distances inside 120 yards.

I was a decent amateur and would hit my pitching wedge at 120, my sand-wedge at 100 max, choking down or 3/4 & 1/2 swinging for lesser shots, but, the real benefit was in close, opening the blade and hitting high lofted shots that would stop quickly from rough and/or bunkers around the green

 Wasn't Tom Kite the first PGA Tour pro to put the 4th wedge in the bag?
Certainly it made a great difference in his scoring average and winning percentage.

Why context the use of a club or architecture solely in the realm of the best PGA Tour pros.

The represent an extremely small percentage of people who play golf

[RSLivingston_III]

Ralph

What about the introduction of grooves in irons, did that have an effect ? I think it was the 1920's in the US that they became prevalent, would that be right ?

Niall

I think the question should be modified to asking about face markings in general. Line and dot are actually about equally effective.
It is safe to say that face markings came into common use with the introduction of the rubber ball. To get stopping power, loft was tried first then face markings were rapidly added. I see clubs from 1900-1905 with either line scoring or dots, the line scores being the most prevalent. Mass produced 'common' American clubs of the 20's seem to be more commonly line scored. I have only really focused on one maker from the 20th century so I don't have a wide enough view of clubs that were being produced. The guy I followed was known for making custom clubs for the best players. That proverbiale top 1%. This business produced clubs with dot punches and line scoring equally for the top players up until he retired.
Research might show that stamping out 'common' clubs might have been more profitable doing it with line scoring. Pete Georgiady might be the best guy to ask.

FYI - Over the years I have seen a few 60 degree-ish niblicks that would have dated to the twenties, so the Lob Wedge is NOT a new idea.

[Garland Bayley]

It would seem to me that the bloody rake had more effect on bunker play than the sand wedge.
The advancement in green mowers had more effect than any putter invention.
The advancement in fairway mowing had more effect than groove technology, at least for shots from the fairway.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()