I’m sitting here resting my bones…that’s from a song by Otis Redding. Anyway, while I’m resting my bones, I’m reading an article in the August issue of one of the major magazines,by Dave Pelz, on short game distances. In my life at golf, I’ve read two of his books on the short game, and profess that they have helped me beyond words. However, with some time for meditation, I’ve noticed some interesting number gaps in the table he provides for the magazine.

Employing a four-wedge scheme, Dave provides distances from 28 yards to 100 yards using a three-length method. In clock terms, swings reach 7:30, 9:00 (horizontal arms) and 10:30. I am sold on this approach. 4 wedges times 3 distances equals 12 different yardages, a great way to fill that pesky 0-100 gap (100 being the full-swing distance of your sand or pitching wedge.)

Here’s the problem…the gaps. One gap is 1 yard only… the 9:00 XW (super lob wedge) and the 7:30 SW. A second gap (9:00 LW and 10:30 XW) is 2 yards. On the other end of the spectrum, one gap is 15 yards…the 10:30 SW and the 10:30 PW. Two gaps at 2 yards or less–what’s the diff? Three of the gaps at 9 yards or greater makes me wonder how many 25-feet putts will Dave leave himself?

I guess that this could all be fixed by changing lofts on the wedges. Take the XW from 64 to 63 degrees, and the problem might be solved, except that 28 yard shot now goes 30. Does that create a new problem?

100% of amateurs of 10 handicap or above stature probably don’t care about, much less employ, the Pelz three-swing length system. They should, and should practice it, and should know their yardages. Then we coud discuss this item more.

Permalink 2 comments

Bookmark/Search this post with: