We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Wedge grooves and spin?

SuperStroke
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bumping this because this has all the information to settle the OP. Whether you chose to believe it or not is another story.


JB said:
Okay, the back and forth is fun, but maybe this will help people.

Do wedge grooves cause spin? Yes and No. Sharp deep lines CAN increase friction enough to see a small amount on clean contact.
They do not however directly spin the ball. THe deeper the grooves, the more it can "clean the face" so that clean contact is available for the golf ball. This is why the groove rule was put in place to make being in the rough more penal as the previous grooves eliminated much of that issue.

Grooves (like anything else) where down and because of that slightly close andchannel less debris which creates less spin. Clean sharp grooves whisk away far more than dull, less deep grooves. Now this all assumes clean contact. To give you an example of how the PM grind with unconventional grooves works is that when opening up the wedge, many times contact is made higher and towards the toe and having grooves out there to pull sand and grass away to give you metal on metal contact is important to not have a flyer or knuckle ball.

Milling is aesthetics for the most part, but grooves are very important and there are subtle differences between companies. Now with all of that said, contact is extremely important and will be the number one factor, followed by ball type and of course the clubs used. All combined make up how much spin is imparted on the golf ball.

As to the reason that urethane or surlyn ends up in the grooves is quite simple. THe cover is soft, the friction is real and the grooves are doing what they are supposed to do. Pull debris away. No different than getting grass out of the grooves or sand out of the grooves, which we all have to do on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
 
-CRW- said:
I wouldn't say there is nothing scientific about it, but understand your concerns. It's also the best test I've found that's publicly available. If you can find something more scientific, please share. I think that's part of the problem. For a long time, golfers - including teaching pros, considered golf a feel game only and ignored science and technology. There's a reason why the ball flight laws are called the "modern" ball flight laws. Because some of the current big name teaching pros had no idea until Trackman revolutionized the way we understand the game.

I get it, most golfers could care less about all the facts. But some of us do care, and I'd like to see more tests like this done and with more variables eliminated.
Click to expand...

Problem is that science is on the side of grooves making no difference*. Using a floored methodology to try prove otherwise does not make the science wrong. Not saying it couldn't be done, if you created three otherwise identical clubs, used a controlled environment, identical balls and a robot then you could get close to quantifying with a large enough sample i suppose.
 
Last edited:
blugold said:
JB, you would know this better than I would. How often do tour players change out their wedges? It looks like Jordan Spieth's wedges are less than new.
Click to expand...

I heard justin rose does his every 1000 swings. The other variable might be that guys have different wedges for differ met course types so they may not switch out a specific wedge at certain intervals.
 
emart2173 said:
I heard justin rose does his every 1000 swings. The other variable might be that guys have different wedges for differ met course types so they may not switch out a specific wedge at certain intervals.
Click to expand...


They also get them for free. Which may help make the decision to change out a wedge, much easier.
 
guernseyhacker said:
Problem is that science is on the side of grooves making no difference*. Using a floored methodology to try prove otherwise does not make the science wrong. Not saying it couldn't be done, if you created three otherwise identical clubs, used a controlled environment, identical balls and a robot then you could get close to quantifying with a large enough sample i suppose.
Click to expand...

What science? Where are you finding this? The best thing I've seen is Rice's test because there is limited information out there. 45-60 swings per club is enough to get an idea that something is going on and Rice's test proves at least that much. I don't understand the willful ignorance to the results just because they don't meet preconceived notions backed up by "science" that not one person has backed up with any studies.
 
I really don't mean to nit-pick but the study does not 'prove' anything. It suggests something perhaps. And that's why the flaws in the approach may matter to some (honestly, it really doesn't to me - any effect of the grooves literally spinning the ball is more than offset by variance in my swing and bad technique).
 
captaincaution said:
Livestrong, the best place for information about balls.

Dimples cause there to be a layer of turbulent flow around the ball in flight, which stabilizes the airflow and reduces drag in flight.
Click to expand...

Whatever bro
 
-CRW- said:
What science? Where are you finding this? The best thing I've seen is Rice's test because there is limited information out there. 45-60 swings per club is enough to get an idea that something is going on and Rice's test proves at least that much. I don't understand the willful ignorance to the results just because they don't meet preconceived notions backed up by "science" that not one person has backed up with any studies.
Click to expand...

What if every clubmaker has already done this work? Looked at grooveless wedges and found no discernible difference from a clean lie compared to grooved wedges? What if they didn't publish these results because they don't need to prove anything by it? I figured that the grooves not grabbing the ball was accepted fact, kind of like how the earth is round and water is made up with two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
 
blugold said:
They also get them for free. Which may help make the decision to change out a wedge, much easier.
Click to expand...

Yep and can get a grind put on whenever they want and the get rid of it after the tournament. #tourgolferproblems
 
blugold said:
What if every clubmaker has already done this work? Looked at grooveless wedges and found no discernible difference from a clean lie compared to grooved wedges? What if they didn't publish these results because they don't need to prove anything by it? I figured that the grooves not grabbing the ball was accepted fact, kind of like how the earth is round and water is made up with two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
Click to expand...

Remember that it was an accepted idea that the earth was flat for a very long time. Accepting an idea solely because someone tells you it's the truth is ignorance at its best.

Again, just about every one of these companies and pro's thought the ball flight laws were different not very long ago. And the uneducated masses went along with it because they thought it was accepted fact.
 
JB said:
Okay, the back and forth is fun, but maybe this will help people.

Do wedge grooves cause spin? Yes and No. Sharp deep lines CAN increase friction enough to see a small amount on clean contact.
They do not however directly spin the ball. THe deeper the grooves, the more it can "clean the face" so that clean contact is available for the golf ball. This is why the groove rule was put in place to make being in the rough more penal as the previous grooves eliminated much of that issue.

Grooves (like anything else) where down and because of that slightly close andchannel less debris which creates less spin. Clean sharp grooves whisk away far more than dull, less deep grooves. Now this all assumes clean contact. To give you an example of how the PM grind with unconventional grooves works is that when opening up the wedge, many times contact is made higher and towards the toe and having grooves out there to pull sand and grass away to give you metal on metal contact is important to not have a flyer or knuckle ball.

Milling is aesthetics for the most part, but grooves are very important and there are subtle differences between companies. Now with all of that said, contact is extremely important and will be the number one factor, followed by ball type and of course the clubs used. All combined make up how much spin is imparted on the golf ball.

As to the reason that urethane or surlyn ends up in the grooves is quite simple. THe cover is soft, the friction is real and the grooves are doing what they are supposed to do. Pull debris away. No different than getting grass out of the grooves or sand out of the grooves, which we all have to do on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

Johnny Hack said:
Create Backspin
This is one of the most common golf myths. Backspin is created by the ball’s compression on the club face.
The loft presented to the ball during contact with the club face distorts it in shape and gives us the launch angle and all of its backspin. The ball doesn’t ride up the club face, as commonly suggested, but instead gets embedded in the face where the groove lines reside.
Simply put: The more loft, the more backspin.
​
This means club face grooves have no influence on the launch angle or backspin. Well-known club designer Ralph Maltby built a set of irons with no face groves at all and played with them extensively to prove this point to skeptics.
Also, in the 1980’s the USGA undertook extensive groove type testing and concluded that in dry conditions it was loft, not grooves, that created backspin on the ball.
Click to expand...

Bumping these quality posts.
 
Really that funnel out debris theory would only apply to a buried lie or a ball in the rough or sand. On a clean lie in the fairway one would think, due to hitting the ball before anything else that grooves would greatly aid in imparting spin.
 
Bobby Purify said:
Really that funnel out debris theory would only apply to a buried lie or a ball in the rough or sand. On a clean lie in the fairway one would think, due to hitting the ball before anything else that grooves would greatly aid in imparting spin.
Click to expand...

See the post directly above your Bobby I think it makes it pretty clear.
 
Bobby Purify said:
Really that funnel out debris theory would only apply to a buried lie or a ball in the rough or sand. On a clean lie in the fairway one would think, due to hitting the ball before anything else that grooves would greatly aid in imparting spin.
Click to expand...

Any debris. Water, a single blade of grass, sand, whatever could get between the ball and the club face. Remember, in a greenside bunker, your typically not making contact with the ball. You're throwing the sand which is moving the ball.

There is no evidence that the grooves grab the ball and impart spin.
 
I think referring to grooves as 'sharp' or 'dull' does nothing but drive the myth forward.
 
blugold said:
Any debris. Water, a single blade of grass, sand, whatever could get between the ball and the club face. Remember, in a greenside bunker, your typically not making contact with the ball. You're throwing the sand which is moving the ball.

There is no evidence that the grooves grab the ball and impart spin.
Click to expand...
I agree that compression, loft and clubhead speed as well as angle of approach all are the key factors yet grooves do play a role as well aside from just blasting debris off of the club face.
 
blugold said:
There is no evidence that the grooves grab the ball and impart spin.
Click to expand...

The only study posted provides evidence that they do. You've just resigned yourself to believing otherwise. That doesn't mean you should spread disinformation. Again, will a few hundred RPM's make a difference for anyone, probably not. But that doesn't mean we make up our own facts because it's accepted practice.
 
blugold said:
Any debris. Water, a single blade of grass, sand, whatever could get between the ball and the club face. Remember, in a greenside bunker, your typically not making contact with the ball. You're throwing the sand which is moving the ball.

There is no evidence that the grooves grab the ball and impart spin.
Click to expand...
But is there evidence that it doesn't? Someone produced a study that while not perfect, is at least an attempt to show some data. Others are just making statements with no data to support, just theory they have read or been told and have accepted as fact. #devilsadvocate. ;)
 
But I also agree with your points as well Blu and JB regarding the debris.
 
CRW, if the amount of spin they impart isnt meaningful (ie you can tell the different with how the balls spins on the green) what does it matter. Furthermore you are ignoring all of the inconsistencies in that test that could have led to such a small difference.
 
YetiLooper said:
But is there evidence that it doesn't? Someone produced a study that while not perfect, is at least an attempt to show some data. Others are just making statements with no data to support, just theory they have read or been told and have accepted as fact. #devilsadvocate. ;)
Click to expand...

Chalk it up to the Cult of THP. It's not the first time and won't be the last. I once had a staffer along with Blugold argue with me over how to hit a fade. I then posted a quote from Jack Nicklaus saying the exact same thing and it settled down some.

The funny thing is, months later that same staffer went to an Adams event and had Bernhard Langer tell him exactly what I said and he embraced the idea in his review thread.
 
Awkward silence said:
CRW, if the amount of spin they impart isnt meaningful (ie you can tell the different with how the balls spins on the green) what does it matter. Furthermore you are ignoring all of the inconsistencies in that test that could have led to such a small difference.
Click to expand...

What matters is the truth is the truth. Regardless if it's inconsequential.

ETA - Furthermore, everyone else is ignoring that the opponents of the argument have not posted a single study backing their claims. NOT 1! And people are willing to accept it as fact because somebody told them so.
 
-CRW- said:
The only study posted provides evidence that they do. You've just resigned yourself to believing otherwise. That doesn't mean you should spread disinformation. Again, will a few hundred RPM's make a difference for anyone, probably not. But that doesn't mean we make up our own facts because it's accepted practice.
Click to expand...

but the study is flawed and therefore unreliable. could it eventually be proven scientifically? sure. but until then, to hold to it is just as much making up facts as not accepting it. it's like vaccinations causing autism. that study is wildly flawed, so much that it was retracted and the doctor who conducted the study lost his license. no, i'm not linking this wedge debate to the deadly fraud perpetrated by that doctor; i'm just giving an example where bad science has unfortunately shaped public perception in a persistent manner that is perpetuated through anecdotes that barely provide correlation but certainly do not prove causation.
 
-CRW- said:
What matters is the truth is the truth. Regardless if it's inconsequential.
Click to expand...
So a moral victory for your sanity :alien:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top