Callaway's new Mack Daddy 2 "R Design" Tour Grind wedges

[DTown3011]

[quote name='mljones99' timestamp='1405001571' post='9672767']
[quote name='DTown3011' timestamp='1404997309' post='9672285']
Just a heads up, if anyone is planning on ordering these anywhere near over length, you are going to have a really challenging time accomplishing a reasonable swingweight. My clubmaker just mocked up my wedges and I have pretty standard build specs that are anywhere from +1/8 to +1/4" over standard and with S400 shafts my swingweights were D9. Waaaayyy too heavy. They have to have lighter heads on the van to accommodate longer builds for the tour players.

The issue is that Callaway stock lengths are a bit weird (35.125" on the lobs, 35.25" on the sand, and 35.375" on the 52) and the swingweights with S300 stock shafts are basically D4. I play 35.25" lob, 35.50" sand, and 35.75" gap which should really be no more than +1/4" over standard with most manufacturers but with Callaway it's an inconsistent step.

We are going to end up porting the wedges and getting the headweights somewhere near reasonable, but if you are ordering these direct from Callaway I guarantee anything over length will come extremely heavy.
[/quote]

Good to know for those of us that like a heavy wedge (mine are all E0+)
[/quote]

Works in your favor!

[TLUBulldogGolf]

[quote name='DTown3011' timestamp='1404997309' post='9672285']
Just a heads up, if anyone is planning on ordering these anywhere near over length, you are going to have a really challenging time accomplishing a reasonable swingweight. My clubmaker just mocked up my wedges and I have pretty standard build specs that are anywhere from +1/8 to +1/4" over standard and with S400 shafts my swingweights were D9. Waaaayyy too heavy. They have to have lighter heads on the van to accommodate longer builds for the tour players.

The issue is that Callaway stock lengths are a bit weird (35.125" on the lobs, 35.25" on the sand, and 35.375" on the 52) and the swingweights with S300 stock shafts are basically D4. I play 35.25" lob, 35.50" sand, and 35.75" gap which should really be no more than +1/4" over standard with most manufacturers but with Callaway it's an inconsistent step.

We are going to end up porting the wedges and getting the headweights somewhere near reasonable, but if you are ordering these direct from Callaway I guarantee anything over length will come extremely heavy.
[/quote]

It is for this exact reason that I have been Playing Mizuno for a while now. My wedges are +3/4" with X100s and my 60 is D6 with my SW at D5, which is right where I like them, slightly heavier than my irons. Mizuno will actually make lighter heads for retail, Callaway doesn't offer them, and I don't know about meeting a requested swing weight. I ordered some copper forged wedges a while back at +3/4" and they were E0-E1, although I didn't specify a swingweight. I really like the look of these though and the new Mizuno offering doesn't quite do it for me, so maybe I will go the porting route if the swing weight isn't manageable.

[DTown3011]

[quote name='TLUBulldogGolf' timestamp='1405085074' post='9679719']
[quote name='DTown3011' timestamp='1404997309' post='9672285']
Just a heads up, if anyone is planning on ordering these anywhere near over length, you are going to have a really challenging time accomplishing a reasonable swingweight. My clubmaker just mocked up my wedges and I have pretty standard build specs that are anywhere from +1/8 to +1/4" over standard and with S400 shafts my swingweights were D9. Waaaayyy too heavy. They have to have lighter heads on the van to accommodate longer builds for the tour players.

The issue is that Callaway stock lengths are a bit weird (35.125" on the lobs, 35.25" on the sand, and 35.375" on the 52) and the swingweights with S300 stock shafts are basically D4. I play 35.25" lob, 35.50" sand, and 35.75" gap which should really be no more than +1/4" over standard with most manufacturers but with Callaway it's an inconsistent step.

We are going to end up porting the wedges and getting the headweights somewhere near reasonable, but if you are ordering these direct from Callaway I guarantee anything over length will come extremely heavy.
[/quote]

It is for this exact reason that I have been Playing Mizuno for a while now. My wedges are +3/4" with X100s and my 60 is D6 with my SW at D5, which is right where I like them, slightly heavier than my irons. Mizuno will actually make lighter heads for retail, Callaway doesn't offer them, and I don't know about meeting a requested swing weight. I ordered some copper forged wedges a while back at +3/4" and they were E0-E1, although I didn't specify a swingweight. I really like the look of these though and the new Mizuno offering doesn't quite do it for me, so maybe I will go the porting route if the swing weight isn't manageable.
[/quote]

Totally agree. I know Mizuno does "B" heads that are lighter for retail. Titleist offers lighter heads for retail I believe as well. I'm sure Ping can also hit requested swingweights. It just sucks because Callaway is putting out some really good equipment but there seems to be a lack of attention to detail in the custom department. I hope they get it right eventually. There is really no reason I shouldn't be able to hit my desired swingweights (which are very reasonable, D4-D5 for wedges) at my lengths which aren't even +1/2".

That said, if ported, these will look awesome and I'll probably be happy anyways.

[Hifade]

I know it would raise the overall static weight but why not just backweight?

[TLUBulldogGolf]

[quote name='Hifade' timestamp='1405089387' post='9680235']
I know it would [b]raise the overall static weight[/b] but why not just backweight?
[/quote]

You answered it in your question.

[Hifade]

[quote name='TLUBulldogGolf' timestamp='1405089567' post='9680265']
[quote name='Hifade' timestamp='1405089387' post='9680235']
I know it would [b]raise the overall static weight[/b] but why not just backweight?
[/quote]

You answered it in your question.
[/quote]

.....but all the comments have been about swingweight being too high and backweighting would reduce that swingweight

[TLUBulldogGolf]

[quote name='Hifade' timestamp='1405089985' post='9680325']
[quote name='TLUBulldogGolf' timestamp='1405089567' post='9680265']
[quote name='Hifade' timestamp='1405089387' post='9680235']
I know it would [b]raise the overall static weight[/b] but why not just backweight?
[/quote]

You answered it in your question.
[/quote]

.....but all the comments have been about swingweight being too high and backweighting would reduce that swingweight
[/quote]

I mean that's really the only reason why. I don't have a desire for the club to be physically heavier myself and I have been able to play wedges where that wasn't necessary. I think having the head be a little lighter is the better way to go but if it came down to it I would try back weighting to see if it worked for me.

[hayzooos]

[quote name='TLUBulldogGolf' timestamp='1405085074' post='9679719']
[quote name='DTown3011' timestamp='1404997309' post='9672285']
Just a heads up, if anyone is planning on ordering these anywhere near over length, you are going to have a really challenging time accomplishing a reasonable swingweight. My clubmaker just mocked up my wedges and I have pretty standard build specs that are anywhere from +1/8 to +1/4" over standard and with S400 shafts my swingweights were D9. Waaaayyy too heavy. They have to have lighter heads on the van to accommodate longer builds for the tour players.

The issue is that Callaway stock lengths are a bit weird (35.125" on the lobs, 35.25" on the sand, and 35.375" on the 52) and the swingweights with S300 stock shafts are basically D4. I play 35.25" lob, 35.50" sand, and 35.75" gap which should really be no more than +1/4" over standard with most manufacturers but with Callaway it's an inconsistent step.

We are going to end up porting the wedges and getting the headweights somewhere near reasonable, but if you are ordering these direct from Callaway I guarantee anything over length will come extremely heavy.
[/quote]

It is for this exact reason that I have been Playing Mizuno for a while now. My wedges are +3/4" with X100s and my 60 is D6 with my SW at D5, which is right where I like them, slightly heavier than my irons. Mizuno will actually make lighter heads for retail, Callaway doesn't offer them, and I don't know about meeting a requested swing weight. I ordered some copper forged wedges a while back at +3/4" and they were E0-E1, although I didn't specify a swingweight. I really like the look of these though and the new Mizuno offering doesn't quite do it for me, so maybe I will go the porting route if the swing weight isn't manageable.
[/quote]

From what I remember, Callaway's official stance on requested SW is "we'll try". I believe they have some internal numbers they won't go above/below to try and meet that requirement when it comes to tip weighting, etc. They'll spec it out and try to match. If they build it and it comes out heavier than requested, I don't think they'll do much to be honest. They'll add weight (like I referenced above, to a certain point), but I don't know about removing it or using specific heads to try and accommodate to get it lighter.

The custom clubs I've ordered from them have never been more than 0.5 points off from what I requested and usually I'm requesting it a little heavier than what they're normally at. Two most recent examples I can think of are the 3Deep from last year and 2Deep earlier this year. 3Deep was spot-on and I had to add a little weight to the 2Deep.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

[quote name='hayzooos' timestamp='1405092043' post='9680635']
[quote name='TLUBulldogGolf' timestamp='1405085074' post='9679719']
[quote name='DTown3011' timestamp='1404997309' post='9672285']
Just a heads up, if anyone is planning on ordering these anywhere near over length, you are going to have a really challenging time accomplishing a reasonable swingweight. My clubmaker just mocked up my wedges and I have pretty standard build specs that are anywhere from +1/8 to +1/4" over standard and with S400 shafts my swingweights were D9. Waaaayyy too heavy. They have to have lighter heads on the van to accommodate longer builds for the tour players.

The issue is that Callaway stock lengths are a bit weird (35.125" on the lobs, 35.25" on the sand, and 35.375" on the 52) and the swingweights with S300 stock shafts are basically D4. I play 35.25" lob, 35.50" sand, and 35.75" gap which should really be no more than +1/4" over standard with most manufacturers but with Callaway it's an inconsistent step.

We are going to end up porting the wedges and getting the headweights somewhere near reasonable, but if you are ordering these direct from Callaway I guarantee anything over length will come extremely heavy.
[/quote]

It is for this exact reason that I have been Playing Mizuno for a while now. My wedges are +3/4" with X100s and my 60 is D6 with my SW at D5, which is right where I like them, slightly heavier than my irons. Mizuno will actually make lighter heads for retail, Callaway doesn't offer them, and I don't know about meeting a requested swing weight. I ordered some copper forged wedges a while back at +3/4" and they were E0-E1, although I didn't specify a swingweight. I really like the look of these though and the new Mizuno offering doesn't quite do it for me, so maybe I will go the porting route if the swing weight isn't manageable.
[/quote]

From what I remember, Callaway's official stance on requested SW is "we'll try". I believe they have some internal numbers they won't go above/below to try and meet that requirement when it comes to tip weighting, etc. They'll spec it out and try to match. If they build it and it comes out heavier than requested, I don't think they'll do much to be honest. They'll add weight (like I referenced above, to a certain point), but I don't know about removing it or using specific heads to try and accommodate to get it lighter.

The custom clubs I've ordered from them have never been more than 0.5 points off from what I requested and usually I'm requesting it a little heavier than what they're normally at. Two most recent examples I can think of are the 3Deep from last year and 2Deep earlier this year. 3Deep was spot-on and I had to add a little weight to the 2Deep.
[/quote]

Part of the problem is there usually isn't a space for swing weight when you order, so you have to hope they see your note about swing weight. Heavier would never be a problem because even if it is light it's easy to add weight. For me, being very tall and needing extra length while wanting a heavy stiff shaft for the control it gives me, swing weight, especially with Callaway, has been an issue. I really like the look of these wedges though so I'll probably end up ordering them and hoping they can hit my number and then figuring it out if they can't.

[DTown3011]

[quote name='Hifade' timestamp='1405089985' post='9680325']
[quote name='TLUBulldogGolf' timestamp='1405089567' post='9680265']
[quote name='Hifade' timestamp='1405089387' post='9680235']
I know it would [b]raise the overall static weight[/b] but why not just backweight?
[/quote]

You answered it in your question.
[/quote]

.....but all the comments have been about swingweight being too high and backweighting would reduce that swingweight
[/quote]

All you are really doing with backweighting is tricking the scale. You are just making the club a heavier sledgehammer, which doesn't really fix the problem.

[quote name='hayzooos' timestamp='1405092043' post='9680635']

From what I remember, Callaway's official stance on requested SW is "we'll try". I believe they have some internal numbers they won't go above/below to try and meet that requirement when it comes to tip weighting, etc. They'll spec it out and try to match. If they build it and it comes out heavier than requested, I don't think they'll do much to be honest. They'll add weight (like I referenced above, to a certain point), but I don't know about removing it or using specific heads to try and accommodate to get it lighter.

The custom clubs I've ordered from them have never been more than 0.5 points off from what I requested and usually I'm requesting it a little heavier than what they're normally at. Two most recent examples I can think of are the 3Deep from last year and 2Deep earlier this year. 3Deep was spot-on and I had to add a little weight to the 2Deep.
[/quote]

Obviously I'm a huge Callaway fan (look in my bag) and I love their equipment, clubs, and the people at the company but they have a long way to go with their custom department. I have yet to order anything with custom specs that hasn't come slightly off or in some cases, completely wrong. There just needs to be more attention to detail. No point in beating a dead horse though!

[Hifade]

[quote name='DTown3011' timestamp='1405095571' post='9681075']
[quote name='Hifade' timestamp='1405089985' post='9680325']
[quote name='TLUBulldogGolf' timestamp='1405089567' post='9680265']
[quote name='Hifade' timestamp='1405089387' post='9680235']
I know it would [b]raise the overall static weight[/b] but why not just backweight?
[/quote]

You answered it in your question.
[/quote]

.....but all the comments have been about swingweight being too high and backweighting would reduce that swingweight
[/quote]

All you are really doing with backweighting is tricking the scale. You are just making the club a heavier sledgehammer, which doesn't really fix the problem.
[/quote]

I'm well aware of what's taking place with backweighting. But, describing it as "a sledgehammer" is a bit extreme, don't you think?

[Bimmer1]

Manufacturers should stop making these crazy short 35" wedges. That would help!

[BillyMack]

These wedges are incredible. They are going to be a huge hit for Callaway.


[attachment=2319137:tourgrind.JPG]

[getair23]

these look great, I'll replace all 4 of my wedges if they add 48* and 64*

[TheMoneyShot]

[quote name='getair23' timestamp='1405224308' post='9689855']
these look great, I'll replace all 4 of my wedges if they add 48* and 64*
[/quote]

I will too if they add the 64* to the lineup. I'm hoping they will add more lofts to this line down the road.

[DTown3011]

My ported 52, 56, & 60 should be here tomorrow!

[TonyPags26]

[quote name='DTown3011' timestamp='1405300902' post='9694275']
My ported 52, 56, & 60 should be here tomorrow!
[/quote]Nice. Pics please!

[DTown3011]

[quote name='TonyPags26' timestamp='1405320132' post='9695695']
[quote name='DTown3011' timestamp='1405300902' post='9694275']
My ported 52, 56, & 60 should be here tomorrow!
[/quote]Nice. Pics please!
[/quote]

You KNOW I will!

[DTown3011]

They're here....and they are SPECTACULAR!

[knudson81]

Wow D, those look amazing! Can't wait to hear how they play!

[StarFleetGolfer]

[quote name='DTown3011' timestamp='1405386344' post='9701357']
They're here....and they are SPECTACULAR!
[/quote]



Those look great

[TheMoneyShot]

[quote name='DTown3011' timestamp='1405386344' post='9701357']
They're here....and they are SPECTACULAR!
[/quote]

Those look great! I cannot wait to hear your review on them.

[JGalls]

[quote name='DTown3011' timestamp='1405386344' post='9701357']
They're here....and they are SPECTACULAR!
[/quote]

Nice D!!!!

[TonyPags26]

Yummy. How much weight did those ports remove?

[DTown3011]

[quote name='TonyPags26' timestamp='1405389616' post='9701709']
Yummy. How much weight did those ports remove?
[/quote]

They were D9 prior to porting. Now they are D4/D4/D5. Really happy with how these came out and the shape if these at address is perfect!

[jonn443]

Those are BEAUTIFUL!!! Is the grind the only difference or is the leading edge effected at all. I game the original Xforged MDs and they are fantastic wedges, but if I could change one thing the c grind on my 60 is a little difficult to be consistent on tight lies. Is the new grind different or the leading edge closer to the ground at address?

[DTown3011]

[quote name='jonn443' timestamp='1405394430' post='9702239']
Those are BEAUTIFUL!!! Is the grind the only difference or is the leading edge effected at all. I game the original Xforged MDs and they are fantastic wedges, but if I could change one thing the c grind on my 60 is a little difficult to be consistent on tight lies. Is the new grind different or the leading edge closer to the ground at address?
[/quote]

The grind actually varies by loft. My 60 for example has a wider more flat sole with generous relief similar to a Vokey T grind. The sand and gap are more narrow more reminiscent of the old C grinds. To me they look perfect for stock grinds and I think hey should be ideal right out of the box...

[ZBigStick]

Those came out great! Glad to hear that the 60 is a little wider soled.

Would you say the grind is still focused on sliding the leading edge under the ball, or is it more versatile? Is there still enough bounce for Bermuda rough or full fairway shots?

Are they any bigger than the MD2? It's a toss up between the TOU•R• grind or a TVD 60.

[Bimmer1]

Gotta get the 58/8 next week.

[DTown3011]

[quote name='ZBigStick' timestamp='1405398641' post='9702557']
Those came out great! Glad to hear that the 60 is a little wider soled.

Would you say the grind is still focused on sliding the leading edge under the ball, or is it more versatile? Is there still enough bounce for Bermuda rough or full fairway shots?

Are they any bigger than the MD2? It's a toss up between the TOU•R• grind or a TVD 60.
[/quote]

I think the grind will be really versatile while still having 9 and 11 bounce on the 60/56.

Size seems to be about the same maybe a touch bigger overall but nothing overly noticeable.