Wedge Shafts

[ATAlxndr]

LZ 6.5 in my 50. PX 6.0 in my 54/58

[pinestreetgolf]

Clearly I was in a shaft / head combo that was clearly not suited to my ability and the gear change was instantaneous.

 

That is one explanation. Another is that you happened to make better swings by pure chance while holding the other driver. Most of these "fittings" are over one afternoon and like 30 swings, which tells you nothing.

 

How many times did you hit your gamer to establish a baseline? If it was once, the data is pretty worthless. If you hit your gamer 30 times, rested, hit it 30 times, rested, hit it 30 times you'd get three sets of numbers that would all likely be pretty different *all with the same club*. It usually happens as a parabola. You start badly because you arn't warmed up or used to hitting indoors (there's a reason you hit your gamer first when they are trying to sell you clubs), the middle is almost always the best because you are warm and used to the bay but not tired, and then you end badly because you are fatigued.

 

Now, if you hit your gamer more than once (i.e. new - gamer - new - gamer - new - gamer) over 4-5 sessions (not one afternoon) then that would be much more accurate. But (gamer - new - new -new) in one afternoon is about as inaccurate as guessing randomly. The problem is you are assuming your 30 swings for your baseline mirror your average swing on the course and thats ridiculous. They could be 30 below or above average swings. You have no idea.

 

I flip a coin 100 times and it goes 48/52. I've established a 50/50 "Baseline" for flipping coins. Then I grab a different coin and flip it 100 times and it goes 70/30 tails. Obviously since I established a "baseline" with the first coin, the second coin is tails biased, right? I mean, the baseline coin was 50/50. Hell, lets say 10 baseline coins were 50/50 and then the eleventh was 80/20 tails. That coin is OBVIOUSLY tails biased, after all those baseline coins!

 

No, of course not. That isn't how it works. You can't establish a baseline and then compare to it because if you happened to swing poorly during the baseline test your data is completely off.

[Ernie1060]

 

 

Clearly I was in a shaft / head combo that was clearly not suited to my ability and the gear change was instantaneous.

 

That is one explanation. Another is that you happened to make better swings by pure chance while holding the other driver. Most of these "fittings" are over one afternoon and like 30 swings, which tells you nothing.

 

How many times did you hit your gamer to establish a baseline? If it was once, the data is pretty worthless. If you hit your gamer 30 times, rested, hit it 30 times, rested, hit it 30 times you'd get three sets of numbers that would all likely be pretty different *all with the same club*. It usually happens as a parabola. You start badly because you arn't warmed up or used to hitting indoors (there's a reason you hit your gamer first when they are trying to sell you clubs), the middle is almost always the best because you are warm and used to the bay but not tired, and then you end badly because you are fatigued.

 

Now, if you hit your gamer more than once (i.e. new - gamer - new - gamer - new - gamer) over 4-5 sessions (not one afternoon) then that would be much more accurate. But (gamer - new - new -new) in one afternoon is about as inaccurate as guessing randomly. The problem is you are assuming your 30 swings for your baseline mirror your average swing on the course and thats ridiculous. They could be 30 below or above average swings. You have no idea.

 

I flip a coin 100 times and it goes 48/52. I've established a 50/50 "Baseline" for flipping coins. Then I grab a different coin and flip it 100 times and it goes 70/30 tails. Obviously since I established a "baseline" with the first coin, the second coin is tails biased, right? I mean, the baseline coin was 50/50. Hell, lets say 10 baseline coins were 50/50 and then the eleventh was 80/20 tails. That coin is OBVIOUSLY tails biased, after all those baseline coins!

 

No, of course not. That isn't how it works. You can't establish a baseline and then compare to it because if you happened to swing poorly during the baseline test your data is completely off.

 

Yeah. This was a fitter called Cool Clubs (I know) and is similar to club champion. This wasn't in a bay, in my jeans at golf galaxy with some 16 year old kid.

 

The session was 90 min.

 

Yes I got to warm up.

 

They used the ball I play.

 

No I didn't take 1 swing with my gamer to set a baseline. There was an initial baseline set with 15- 20 (this was over a year ago). They take the data and start building clubs for you. Multiple head and shaft combos based on the data from the first 20 swings.

 

You test a new club. Give feedback. Try a 2nd new club. Feedback. Hit gamer.

 

This goes on and on to find the best 2 clubs. You rest and then test all over again against the gamer.

 

You seem so suspicious of the idea that there is a difference between shafts and head combos and that there isn't a one size fits all. More power to you, no one is forcing you to have propper fitting.

 

I should have mentioned that my gamer was an 8.5 degree, cranked to 10.5 and X shaft which they measured its frequency and came in as XX. The bad numbers had nothing to do with with being warmed up. That's just a shaft that I'm not capable of playing. Despite me being on this forum, I can't swing a driver 120.

[pinestreetgolf]

You seem so suspicious of the idea that there is a difference between shafts and head combos and that there isn't a one size fits all. More power to you, no one is forcing you to have propper fitting.

 

I think there is enough variability in your swing that it is literally impossible to "set a baseline" in 90 minutes. If you happen to make the lousy ones at the wrong time you'll have bad data and get misfit. If you "establish a baseline" over, say, four or five days then I'm with you. It seems silly to me that you could think one afternoon worth of swings - however many times you take a swipe - will always represent how you hit your current club.

 

Of course there isn't a one size fits all. How you measure yourself (one afternoon, less than 100 swings total) with your current driver is insufficient to know much of anything at all. How many threads on these boards have innumerable posters say "it was a bad driving day..." Well, you better hope that particular day you've chosen as your "i'm gonna set a baseline day" is a dead average driving day because otherwise your data is nonsense. Just because you are hooked up to a machine doesn't mean you have removed randomness.

 

Look at this OP. If I told him a shaft was a s200 and a second shaft was a s300 and put him on a monitor, he might kill the s200 with the s300 - not because its better but because (1) he wants to, he wants the problem to be the equipment, subconsciously and (2) he might *just randomly happen to make better swings while holding the s300*. But they're still the same shaft.

 

You are really going to tell me that in 90 minutes (your post) you were able to swing enough times to establish your true, on-the-course average and cut through the noise of mechanical errors? No chance. You may as well have rolled dice to see which one to buy. You were always just going to buy whichever one you happened to be holding when you made your best swings given only 90 minutes.

[Ernie1060]

You seem so suspicious of the idea that there is a difference between shafts and head combos and that there isn't a one size fits all. More power to you, no one is forcing you to have propper fitting.

 

I think there is enough variability in your swing that it is literally impossible to "set a baseline" in 90 minutes. If you happen to make the lousy ones at the wrong time you'll have bad data and get misfit. If you "establish a baseline" over, say, four or five days then I'm with you. It seems silly to me that you could think one afternoon worth of swings - however many times you take a swipe - will always represent how you hit your current club.

 

Of course there isn't a one size fits all. How you measure yourself (one afternoon, less than 100 swings total) with your current driver is insufficient to know much of anything at all. How many threads on these boards have innumerable posters say "it was a bad driving day..." Well, you better hope that particular day you've chosen as your "i'm gonna set a baseline day" is a dead average driving day because otherwise your data is nonsense. Just because you are hooked up to a machine doesn't mean you have removed randomness.

 

Look at this OP. If I told him a shaft was a s200 and a second shaft was a s300 and put him on a monitor, he might kill the s200 with the s300 - not because its better but because (1) he wants to, he wants the problem to be the equipment, subconsciously and (2) he might *just randomly happen to make better swings while holding the s300*. But they're still the same shaft.

 

You are really going to tell me that in 90 minutes (your post) you were able to swing enough times to establish your true, on-the-course average and cut through the noise of mechanical errors? No chance. You may as well have rolled dice to see which one to buy. You were always just going to buy whichever one you happened to be holding when you made your best swings given only 90 minutes.

 

Incorrect sir. Trackman tracks every swing I made. It tracks AoA, speed, path to target, face to path...and so on and so on. The don't even kick out the bad swings bc it tells you how it will perform on the bad ones.

 

First you assumed it was 30 min and def not enough time / swings. I tell you it's 90 and that is not enough time/swings and too much variable.

 

Let me ask you, irrespective of the fact that I know the answer, is there so much variable in my swing that from swing to swing I could go 108 to 120+? That my AoA changes 10 degrees? That I'm inside by 4 deg then out 7??? I'm no pro but I'm not a 25hc... My variable isn't nearly as large as you think.

 

Are you telling my that senior flex for slower swings is basically BS? Give a person any club, tell them what they want to hear, and itll be the right club? Give them a long drive shaft?

 

I agree that there is a variable in my swing and in everyone's swing. But I disagree in your hypothesis that I may as well rolled the dice on what club to buy, that statement is asinine.

 

And if it's true. If what you are saying is true but I think it worked and I hit more fairways and gained some yardage, why would you s*** on that? Why take that?

 

What driver / shaft do you play? Did you roll the dice to choose it? Did you go through a 6 month intense fitting session to have enough data points to make a scientific conclusion?

 

I think that we are going to have to disagree on this. I've been playing a driver for the past 12 months that I think I was fitted into properly. You think it was all chance.

[pinestreetgolf]

Let me ask you, irrespective of the fact that I know the answer, is there so much variable in my swing that from swing to swing I could go 108 to 120+? That my AoA changes 10 degrees? That I'm inside by 4 deg then out 7??? I'm no pro but I'm not a 25hc... My variable isn't nearly as large as you think.

 

That's not how statistics work. Your variable is your variable. What you mean by "variable" is standard deviation - how much you vary those attributes swing to swing. If you are a pro, you have a tiny standard deviation. If you are a 20 cap, you have a large standard deviation. However, the actual standard deviation is irrelevant. What is relevant is the relative standard deviation to your fitting. If your swing has a standard deviation of, say, +/- 2* AoA and the day you got fitted your mechanics are putting you at the bottom of that +/- range then your fitting will be poor. You will get fit "close", *but the better you are the more precise the fitting has to be for it to actually help you. A 20 cap fit into a club that is 90% correct will see more improvement than a scratch fit into a club that is 90% correct. Its a relative issue, not an absolute one. It doesn't matter how tight your standard deviation is - if you have one, and if you don't isolate it, your fitting is off by x%, where x is the amount of deviation you had on the single session you were fit.

 

If you want to get true numbers you need several sessions worth of sample, unless you happen to swing right at your mean on the day you were fit. Which is possible, but unlikely.

 

Are you telling my that senior flex for slower swings is basically BS? Give a person any club, tell them what they want to hear, and itll be the right club? Give them a long drive shaft?

 

No, I'm telling you that "fitting" is relative. You can be fit to 70% correct, 90% correct, 99% correct. If you do it in 90 minutes you most likely won't be even close to a 90%+ fit. The percent fit you got is pretty random, because your standard deviation off your average swing might be enormous given 90 minutes.

 

And if it's true. If what you are saying is true but I think it worked and I hit more fairways and gained some yardage, why would you s*** on that? Why take that?

 

If you like it, more power to you. I'm pointing out that your take on how to get an optimal fit is, in my opinion, not correct. I said so to offer a different perspective to the OP, who is trying to choose a wedge shaft. I think what he should do is get two or three choices and try them over a long period of time, not swing them each 30 times in one trackman session and pick the best numbers.

 

What driver / shaft do you play? Did you roll the dice to choose it? Did you go through a 6 month intense fitting session to have enough data points to make a scientific conclusion?

 

I play an Epic Subzero at 10.5* with an GD-BB 60x shaft. I did not roll dice. It took me about nine sessions at GolfTec to dial it in over maybe a month. If I had chosen the best shaft numbers after the first day, it would have been a blueboard 53x. The blueboard was very light, and I was having a great day the first day in terms of hitting int he middle. Subsequent sessions revealed that while I could get it to 114 or so, it had an unacceptably low level of center contact. The BB 60x was third after the first session. It was first by a mile after nine sessions, despite being 2-3mph slower than the blueboard.

 

Even then, I had only assembled a set of 7 shafts to try. My fit is not 100% - there is probably a shaft out there I didn't have in the test group that is better. But we get as close as we can.

 

I think that we are going to have to disagree on this. I've been playing a driver for the past 12 months that I think I was fitted into properly. You think it was all chance.

 

I don't think it was "all chance". I think it was mostly chance. But this is golf. If you like it, don't let a random guy on the internet talk you out of it. Your analysis of how to arrive at a baseline for comparison is something I don't think makes any sense from a logical perspective but golf isn't logical. If you hit it good, wonderful. I don't agree with you that 90 minutes is enough time to try enough shafts and make enough swings to get optimal, and I don't think a single day is optimal because of how much our swings can vary day to day.

 

Please note "random" doesn't mean "wrong". A broken clock is right twice a day. You might have the perfect driver for you. I just don't agree with your method.

[Craigstands17]

 

There are generally four ways you find the wedge shafts you like:

 

1. Identical to your iron shafts (a lot of tour players)

2. One flex up but maintain launch by using an 8 iron shaft. So you would shaft with x3 (or whatever it is) 8 iron shafts. Tough to find these above x100 for dynamic gold, but some do it this way (Jason Day).

3. One flex softer but heavier. For you, this would be the s400 (a lot of tour players). However, there is basically no difference between the s400 and the s200 unless you get tour issue to make sure the weight is correct. They are only 7 grams apart.

4. The meant-for-wedge shaft of your iron shaft maker. For you, the DG Spinner (Dufner).

 

1 and 3 are by far the most popular, but those are generally the framework. I'm not sure exactly why you would try the s300. The people telling you to play that shaft don't play x100s, so its pretty irrelevant to you and the s200 and s300 are pretty much exactly the same thing.

 

 

 

Just went with option 1 described above here for my 50* and 54* while i may not take full swings all the time with these wedges having the same shaft and flex as in my irons gives me the confidence on full club gaps and how much spin i will get. For my 60* I change it up and go with Tour Issue S400 as i am not taking full swings with this club and prefer the spin rates i get with this club around the green.

[Hambone1]

That's not how statistics work. Your variable is your variable. What you mean by "variable" is standard deviation - how much you vary those attributes swing to swing. If you are a pro, you have a tiny standard deviation. If you are a 20 cap, you have a large standard deviation. However, the actual standard deviation is irrelevant. What is relevant is the relative standard deviation to your fitting. If your swing has a standard deviation of, say, +/- 2* AoA and the day you got fitted your mechanics are putting you at the bottom of that +/- range then your fitting will be poor. You will get fit "close", *but the better you are the more precise the fitting has to be for it to actually help you. A 20 cap fit into a club that is 90% correct will see more improvement than a scratch fit into a club that is 90% correct. Its a relative issue, not an absolute one. It doesn't matter how tight your standard deviation is - if you have one, and if you don't isolate it, your fitting is off by x%, where x is the amount of deviation you had on the single session you were fit.

 

If you want to get true numbers you need several sessions worth of sample, unless you happen to swing right at your mean on the day you were fit. Which is possible, but unlikely.

 

Are you telling my that senior flex for slower swings is basically BS? Give a person any club, tell them what they want to hear, and itll be the right club? Give them a long drive shaft?

 

No, I'm telling you that "fitting" is relative. You can be fit to 70% correct, 90% correct, 99% correct. If you do it in 90 minutes you most likely won't be even close to a 90%+ fit. The percent fit you got is pretty random, because your standard deviation off your average swing might be enormous given 90 minutes.

 

And if it's true. If what you are saying is true but I think it worked and I hit more fairways and gained some yardage, why would you s*** on that? Why take that?

 

If you like it, more power to you. I'm pointing out that your take on how to get an optimal fit is, in my opinion, not correct. I said so to offer a different perspective to the OP, who is trying to choose a wedge shaft. I think what he should do is get two or three choices and try them over a long period of time, not swing them each 30 times in one trackman session and pick the best numbers.

 

What driver / shaft do you play? Did you roll the dice to choose it? Did you go through a 6 month intense fitting session to have enough data points to make a scientific conclusion?

 

I play an Epic Subzero at 10.5* with an GD-BB 60x shaft. I did not roll dice. It took me about nine sessions at GolfTec to dial it in over maybe a month. If I had chosen the best shaft numbers after the first day, it would have been a blueboard 53x. The blueboard was very light, and I was having a great day the first day in terms of hitting int he middle. Subsequent sessions revealed that while I could get it to 114 or so, it had an unacceptably low level of center contact. The BB 60x was third after the first session. It was first by a mile after nine sessions, despite being 2-3mph slower than the blueboard.

 

Even then, I had only assembled a set of 7 shafts to try. My fit is not 100% - there is probably a shaft out there I didn't have in the test group that is better. But we get as close as we can.

 

I think that we are going to have to disagree on this. I've been playing a driver for the past 12 months that I think I was fitted into properly. You think it was all chance.

 

I don't think it was "all chance". I think it was mostly chance. But this is golf. If you like it, don't let a random guy on the internet talk you out of it. Your analysis of how to arrive at a baseline for comparison is something I don't think makes any sense from a logical perspective but golf isn't logical. If you hit it good, wonderful. I don't agree with you that 90 minutes is enough time to try enough shafts and make enough swings to get optimal, and I don't think a single day is optimal because of how much our swings can vary day to day.

 

 

Not trying to be a contrarian, but...your "process" takes a bit of a hit when you admit it was done at GolfTEC, presumably not using GC2/HMT combo, GCQuad, or Trackman. SkyTrak or GC2 without HMT makes your argument laughable.

[Ernie1060]

 

 

That's not how statistics work. Your variable is your variable. What you mean by "variable" is standard deviation - how much you vary those attributes swing to swing. If you are a pro, you have a tiny standard deviation. If you are a 20 cap, you have a large standard deviation. However, the actual standard deviation is irrelevant. What is relevant is the relative standard deviation to your fitting. If your swing has a standard deviation of, say, +/- 2* AoA and the day you got fitted your mechanics are putting you at the bottom of that +/- range then your fitting will be poor. You will get fit "close", *but the better you are the more precise the fitting has to be for it to actually help you. A 20 cap fit into a club that is 90% correct will see more improvement than a scratch fit into a club that is 90% correct. Its a relative issue, not an absolute one. It doesn't matter how tight your standard deviation is - if you have one, and if you don't isolate it, your fitting is off by x%, where x is the amount of deviation you had on the single session you were fit.

 

If you want to get true numbers you need several sessions worth of sample, unless you happen to swing right at your mean on the day you were fit. Which is possible, but unlikely.

 

Are you telling my that senior flex for slower swings is basically BS? Give a person any club, tell them what they want to hear, and itll be the right club? Give them a long drive shaft?

 

No, I'm telling you that "fitting" is relative. You can be fit to 70% correct, 90% correct, 99% correct. If you do it in 90 minutes you most likely won't be even close to a 90%+ fit. The percent fit you got is pretty random, because your standard deviation off your average swing might be enormous given 90 minutes.

 

And if it's true. If what you are saying is true but I think it worked and I hit more fairways and gained some yardage, why would you s*** on that? Why take that?

 

If you like it, more power to you. I'm pointing out that your take on how to get an optimal fit is, in my opinion, not correct. I said so to offer a different perspective to the OP, who is trying to choose a wedge shaft. I think what he should do is get two or three choices and try them over a long period of time, not swing them each 30 times in one trackman session and pick the best numbers.

 

What driver / shaft do you play? Did you roll the dice to choose it? Did you go through a 6 month intense fitting session to have enough data points to make a scientific conclusion?

 

I play an Epic Subzero at 10.5* with an GD-BB 60x shaft. I did not roll dice. It took me about nine sessions at GolfTec to dial it in over maybe a month. If I had chosen the best shaft numbers after the first day, it would have been a blueboard 53x. The blueboard was very light, and I was having a great day the first day in terms of hitting int he middle. Subsequent sessions revealed that while I could get it to 114 or so, it had an unacceptably low level of center contact. The BB 60x was third after the first session. It was first by a mile after nine sessions, despite being 2-3mph slower than the blueboard.

 

Even then, I had only assembled a set of 7 shafts to try. My fit is not 100% - there is probably a shaft out there I didn't have in the test group that is better. But we get as close as we can.

 

I think that we are going to have to disagree on this. I've been playing a driver for the past 12 months that I think I was fitted into properly. You think it was all chance.

 

I don't think it was "all chance". I think it was mostly chance. But this is golf. If you like it, don't let a random guy on the internet talk you out of it. Your analysis of how to arrive at a baseline for comparison is something I don't think makes any sense from a logical perspective but golf isn't logical. If you hit it good, wonderful. I don't agree with you that 90 minutes is enough time to try enough shafts and make enough swings to get optimal, and I don't think a single day is optimal because of how much our swings can vary day to day.

 

 

Not trying to be a contrarian, but...your "process" takes a bit of a hit when you admit it was done at GolfTEC, presumably not using GC2/HMT combo, GCQuad, or Trackman. SkyTrak or GC2 without HMT makes your argument laughable.

 

I'll take 90 min with data I can trust from a trackman vs 20 settings with information from the launch monitors at GolfTec.

[Hambone1]

My point exactly.

[pinestreetgolf]

I'll take 90 min with data I can trust from a trackman vs 20 settings with information from the launch monitors at GolfTec.

 

No worries then. If you think 90 minutes of swinging your swing in one day produces a set of data you can trust to represent your average swing on the course, more power to you. We've both laid out our respective views, glad you found a big stick that works. There are always two elements to margin for error - sample size and measurement accuracy. You've chosen a tiny sample measured very accurately. I've chosen a very large sample measured less accurately. I think my way is more likely produce smaller error, but to each his own.

[Ernie1060]

I'll take 90 min with data I can trust from a trackman vs 20 settings with information from the launch monitors at GolfTec.

 

No worries then. If you think 90 minutes of swinging your swing in one day produces a set of data you can trust to represent your average swing on the course, more power to you. We've both laid out our respective views, glad you found a big stick that works. There are always two elements to margin for error - sample size and measurement accuracy. You've chosen a tiny sample measured very accurately. I've chosen a very large sample measured less accurately. I think my way is more likely produce smaller error, but to each his own.

That's fair. As long as we each think our process is correct, most of this really lies in the space between our ears.

 

Hit it long and straight, I know I am!

[Pigems]

I’ve been doing a lot of reading lately on the S200/S300/S400 and DG wedge flex shafts and the just of it seems to be that the only shaft TT actually makes the S300 shaft. The S200 shafts are just S300’s that came out too light and the S400’s are just S300’s that came out too heavy, they don’t actually make S200 or S400 shafts. On the DG wedge flex shafts, they are just S300’s that haven’t been weight sorted at all, so they could be S200, S300 or S400 depending on the actual shaft. Hope this helps :)

[J_Tizzle]

Interesting reads here. I ordered a set of i200's with the 105s in them and ordered a set of glides with the same shaft and hated them for the wedges. The spin was uncontrollable. Pulled the C-tapers I had in my old wedges and put them in there to try out and I'm still ripping them much more than I used to (maybe i needed new wedges sooner). Considering putting some 120s in there, o maybe some of the 105x in the wedges to control the flight/spin a bit better. I do hit down on it pretty good, so maybe just flatted out the wedge swing might work better than playing so much with the shafts.

[pinestreetgolf]

Interesting reads here. I ordered a set of i200's with the 105s in them and ordered a set of glides with the same shaft and hated them for the wedges. The spin was uncontrollable. Pulled the C-tapers I had in my old wedges and put them in there to try out and I'm still ripping them much more than I used to (maybe i needed new wedges sooner). Considering putting some 120s in there, o maybe some of the 105x in the wedges to control the flight/spin a bit better. I do hit down on it pretty good, so maybe just flatted out the wedge swing might work better than playing so much with the shafts.

 

Do you play the Tour-V wedge in your Cally PM (the stock shaft) ? Its designed to kill spin because that head (weight moved to toe, ball stays on grooves longer) produces so much of it. I loved that shaft for a while in all my wedges until I discovered the old FCM rifle shafts and went with them in all my clubs.

[Boiler0007]

I match my gap wedge to my iron set (currently Program 130), and use stock steel shafts in my sandwedge

[J_Tizzle]

Interesting reads here. I ordered a set of i200's with the 105s in them and ordered a set of glides with the same shaft and hated them for the wedges. The spin was uncontrollable. Pulled the C-tapers I had in my old wedges and put them in there to try out and I'm still ripping them much more than I used to (maybe i needed new wedges sooner). Considering putting some 120s in there, o maybe some of the 105x in the wedges to control the flight/spin a bit better. I do hit down on it pretty good, so maybe just flatted out the wedge swing might work better than playing so much with the shafts.

 

Do you play the Tour-V wedge in your Cally PM (the stock shaft) ? Its designed to kill spin because that head (weight moved to toe, ball stays on grooves longer) produces so much of it. I loved that shaft for a while in all my wedges until I discovered the old FCM rifle shafts and went with them in all my clubs.

 

The PM I have ordered just has the stock shaft in it, but I did previously have a 64* PM that I put a C Taper in which I liked for the most part.

 

I might play around with the Modus wedge shafts, maybe grab some 115s as I kinda prefer the heavier shafts in my wedges (keeps me swinging through the ball).

[ChipNRun]

I got to talk to the Vokey wedge marketing manager several months ago. We got around to shafts, and he said Bob Vokey suggests having the same shafts in your wedges as your irons. For the wedges you mainly use for partial shots, softstep the wedge shafts. This meshes with what pinestreetgolf offered as an option.

 

As for me, I started using KBS Tour R-flex (110 grams) in my wedges a couple of years ago.

 

I originally had CG14s with a stock 125 gram TRAction wedge flex shaft. In 2014 I reshafted my X20 Tours from PX 5.0 (115 grams) to NS Pro 8950 R-flex (97 grams) to lighten the load. The following season I started having lots of distance problems on partial wedge shots - too short and too long. The gap from 125 grams in wedges to 97 grams in irons was too much.

 

So, I went to KBS R-flex. And, I had these shafts put into my Callaway 48° and 54° at factory. My 60° has a KBS Tour-V wedge shaft (125 grams, S+) because I got it used. Not sure if I'll match the 60° with the KBS R-flex or not.

[Valtiel]

I rather enjoy the soft stepped version of your iron shafts in wedges, however KBS Tours are a bit too spinny in wedges for me so I opted for Dynamic Gold Xs. I found a few 7 iron shafts in X200 and X300 and used those, I like them a lot. I do however like the matching KBS Tour X in my gap wedge.

[spetzle]

anyone try/like the KBS 610 wedge shaft? I demoed one and it was so smooth