Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I wondered the same thing about the shaft. I'm not a big fan of the stock spinner and it shows up in my dispersion on full shots. I was surprised to hear Dan's been playing them for years. Wouldn't have guessed that from this video. All very interesting.I wonder if you and the spinner shaft do not really get along...
I've absolutely seen that in my ZipCore Tour Rack wedge. The Full / S-Shaped sole is very similar to the sole on the CBX2 56*, and I've found it to be very forgiving on the 60* LW. The sole on my RTX4 60* is more of a C-Grind, and with only 6* bounce it is not very forgiving, but I trust the low-bounce on hard bunkers and tight hard-pan lies.No, but the sole grind is super versatile. And I say that as one who loves low bounce in his LW
The standard deviation (read: variance) in dispersion, while small, was doubled with ZipCore over CBX2. My impression was that CBX2 was incredibly consistent, and the data stands to confirm that.
Also, does the conversation have to be about the full wedge spectrum? Considering I use my 58 exclusively around the green, why would I care that my 54 or 50 didn't have the same grind versatility?
If you want more forginess on full swings then purchase the GW that comes with your iron set. It will be far more forgiving than any cavity back wedge.
If you need added forgivness on chip and pitch shots then practice more. The loss of feel and control is not worth the trade-off that comes with any cavity back wedge.
For the first part, you were spinning the CBX’s more. That would account for the small improvement in consistency. But you kept swings in the results that were several mph faster with the CBX versus the RTX so you can’t suggest the head caused that, regardless of what @Jman or others may see. All things being equal, an increase in club head speed will increase spin. So to confirm the head added spin you'd need to keep shots in your results that are consistent between both clubs. You’d really need the same shafts as well, but that’s not likely to help the average consumer who will opt for the stock shaft and I get that.The standard deviation (read: variance) in dispersion, while small, was doubled with ZipCore over CBX2. My impression was that CBX2 was incredibly consistent, and the data stands to confirm that.
Also, does the conversation have to be about the full wedge spectrum? Considering I use my 58 exclusively around the green, why would I care that my 54 or 50 didn't have the same grind versatility?
what do you mean by 'kept swings'? We didn't throw away anything - Would defeat the purpose.For the first part, you were spinning the CBX’s more. That would account for the small improvement in consistency. But you kept swings in the results that were several mph faster with the CBX versus the RTX so you can’t suggest the head caused that, regardless of what @Jman or others may see. All things being equal, an increase in club head speed will increase spin. So to confirm the head added spin you'd need to keep shots in your results that are consistent between both clubs. You’d really need the same shafts as well, but that’s not likely to help the average consumer who will opt for the stock shaft and I get that.
As for the second part, the lack of options may not matter to you, but may to others. So it should be in the conversation, but not as a deal breaker for everyone. Some may want more grind/bounce options and they have that with the Cleveland traditional wedges. It’s just my opinion, but I see no real benefits in the numbers from this test to justify giving up options for the CBX.
Based on the strike pattern (hopefully not ego), I think having a finite variance is a great representation of the differences in the head. And while I absolutely agree it'd be fun to have a variety of players hit the heads to showcase the differences, you start to fall away from what matters most (the head performance) and rely more heavily on the strike quality (the player).Enjoyed this video a lot. Would be interesting to run a similar test with a 15 handicap. My gut tells me that the dispersion difference would be at least as great and maybe moreso.
Based on the strike pattern (hopefully not ego), I think having a finite variance is a great representation of the differences in the head. And while I absolutely agree it'd be fun to have a variety of players hit the heads to showcase the differences, you start to fall away from what matters most (the head performance) and rely more heavily on the strike quality (the player).