MGS Community Labs - SCOR Short Iron Testing

[GolfSpy WD]

 

 

Anyone who purports to tell you anything about any club or shaft after only a dozen or so launch monitor swings is speaking NONSENSE.   It takes a good long while just to get used to how a club reacts and to alter your mechanics to deliver a swing well suited to the club.

 

This is exactly why these tests run for so long

 

Great feedback Mark!

[revkev]

This is exactly why these tests run for so long

 

Great feedback Mark!

 

 

Totally agree, Mark you've been a great addition to the group - that's the beauty of doing this as a community.  Also I think your comment about the launch monitor is important when being fit and buying clubs.  You really need a couple of sessions to make that decision.  While our swings are our swings they sometimes get off and if you get fit when that swing is off..........

 

I like to try and then go back and try again.  I would have bought an SLDR 10.5 if I had gone for it at the first fitting.  After tryin the 10.5 up one verses the 12.0 set to fade side by side at another demo day a few weeks later I realized that the 12.0 was the better fit.  I'm still a little up in the air with the shaft but have yet to find a shaft that outdoes the stock one - seriously - Statistically I've hit 82 percent of my fairways with the driver over the past 5 rounds and very few of those shots have been misshit so that's at maximum distance for me albeit in the 235 range.  I would like to find a shaft that gives me some more yardage but I'm getting a lot out of the driver right now and really can't wait until it dries out again in the winter to see about the run out.  It wasn't overly wet at TPC Sawgrass and I hit a couple right around 250 there - that's the last time I played in conditions that might be called "dry".

[markb]

As to the low bullets- the Scor produces more dramatic mishits than the Speedblade, but I attribute those infrequent uglies to my getting used to the club. All Scor shots have more spin on them than the SB. As far as controlling the trajectory, don't think I'll ever be able to get them to go as high as the SB's, but I am finding ways to gel them up somewhat. The change of shafts might take care of it completely.

 

 Here's my beef with indoor LM testing. It's always too short and too "foreign". It takes me a good half hour to get set up because I have to check how the store employees have futzed it up with "special" inputs. (It's a GC2 with the computer sim.) I don't like hitting off a mat indoors. I don't like the lighting and sense of confinement. And since the GC2 can only tell you ball speed, spin and launch angle, with other measurements being calculated, I find it only useful for comparisons against a well known benchmark. It is good for comparing the relative merits of shafts, but only after many repetitions that take up an enormous amount of launch monitor time.

 

Unless you own one, you can't afford to use it enough to make proper decisions with it.

[Kenny B]

I really like how this testing is going.  Great to see this wedge being put through it's paces.  Personally, I would like to see more club testing like this.  

 

I am looking forward to the summary pages with your conclusions.  I have played my SCOR 54 and 58 wedges for about a year and like them a lot.  So far, you guys are pushing me to add a few more!

 

As for the thinned shots; the SCOR works pretty well.  I have one particular hole at the course where I have perfected (well, sort of) a very low 58 wedge shot.  It's a short par 4 that can be driven, but depending on the wind, most likely I will have a 20-30 yard second shot.  I would sometimes like to play the hole with an iron off the tee, but the green is guarded on both sides by trees that many years ago were fine, but today have grown together at the top.  A high wedge shot from the fairway will be knocked down, so it's best to drive it as far as you can.  The problem is that the green is not big; there is rough short so could mean not getting on if you land it short.  Can't hit a high shot to stop the ball because of the trees, and a medium wedge may not have enough spin to keep the ball from going off the back.  So, after much practice with the SCOR 58, I can now hit a low spinning shot that checks up nicely.  Nice weapon to have in the bag!

[markb]

After 78 holes, my running total stands at:

 

 Greens Hit: Scor - 54, Speedblades - 54.

 Closest to the Pin: Scor - 35, Speedblades - 30, 13 ties.

 

 Observations - the new "smooth" swing with the Scor worked wonders again today. It hit the green on all three attempts from heavy rough.  Now that I have found the way it likes to be hit, it is rapidly gaining ground.

 

You'll note that it only took me about 50 holes to find the Scor's groove. 50 holes! That's like 10 normal rounds of golf. If I had made my conclusion early, the Scor would have certainly lost. Now it has caught up and is starting to extend its lead.

[Blade]

After 78 holes, my running total stands at:

 

Greens Hit: Scor - 54, Speedblades - 54.

Closest to the Pin: Scor - 35, Speedblades - 30, 13 ties.

 

Observations - the new "smooth" swing with the Scor worked wonders again today. It hit the green on all three attempts from heavy rough. Now that I have found the way it likes to be hit, it is rapidly gaining ground.

 

You'll note that it only took me about 50 holes to find the Scor's groove. 50 holes! That's like 10 normal rounds of golf. If I had made my conclusion early, the Scor would have certainly lost. Now it has caught up and is starting to extend its lead.

Great job on the results! Very useful!

[revkev]

Another great SCOR feature that we haven't touched on are the grips with the little marks on them. They work great in Kenny's scenario. I don't know his specifics but mine here might cause a 3 wood off the tee to 50 yards which is a 3/4 60 at the 1st hole, flies low, hops once, stops. I'd cover 285 or so with that combo. If the hole is longer it could be the same scenario with my 53 at the second dot, 300. 48 at 75, 315. It is very easy to control distances and manage a short game with these shots. Need the same 315 high? Hit the full 60. Have an opening in front of the pin and little rough hit the 44 3/4 slower tempo.

 

Have a longer bunker shot and need a runner, weight forward, 48, first hole, square face 3/4 swing and on and on it goes like playing a musical instrument.

[revkev]

Last on course day for the so called "official" part of this test although frankly I couldn't be happier with how this has turned out. It has become a true community forum with another MGSer joining in on his own dime. That should totally get SCOR stoked.

 

I will go for an LM session after work on Monday or if not then perhaps during lunch weds. This has been a crazy week and the weekend will be crazier, 12 hours tomorrow, 10 hours Sunday including 2 services and a funeral.

 

I think LM will be important as it will confirm or deny what my eyes are telling me. I have over 60 recorded shots with each PW BTW and 40 with the SCOR GW, perhaps 25 with the Wilson GW which is now in a closet next to the 5 iron.

 

I have a set of wedge numbers to add in (top desk drawer at work.). Right now the SCOR is slightly ahead (it's really come on of late) but those numbers will make the two conus within inches of each other somewhere between 19 and 20 feet from the hole on average.

 

Since charting the quadrants of where my shots finished an interesting pattern has emerged. Bot the SCOR GW and PW have equal numbers of shots finishing in each quadrant. Not so with the Wilson that tends to be either long left or short right.

 

Here's what I think the deal is there. On the course with only one shot the Wilson does well because I'm very focused and better at allowing for the wind. In these testing sessions I'm trying to hit shots in a variety of directions with each club. The Wilson launches higher and therefore is impacted by the wind more.

 

The SCOR is a brute that just holds it's line. Therefore the ball goes where it is aimed and that puts an equal number of shots, short, long, left, right, it goes where I'm aiming it and is not effected as much by the wind. To say it's low is inaccurate for me. Mark has a heavier shaft in his. I have a 75 gram graphite with a 65 gram graphite in the Wilson.

 

Beyond a doubt I can control the SCOR better than the Wilson. I think the Wilson is more forgiving in the traditional sense of the word but these are wedges, I'm a low handicapper whose strength is his short game, greater forgiveness in a wedge that way may hurt me more than help. I like to be able to control the trajectory, to play 3/4 shots all the things SCOR stands for. I have little doubt that I will bag the SCOR wedge over the Wilson assuming the LM confirms what I'm seeing.

 

BTW I'm also seriously considering some test drives with the rocket baled backups because they have those aerotech's in them. I think I might be able to control them a bit more. We'll see. I'm playing Copperhead next weekend.

[markb]

I agree with Rev's observations about the aiming of the Scor's. They seem easier to aim.

 

I'm quite used to the Lamkin extra long wedge grips since Taylormade uses the same grips on its wedges. They are very nice and allow you to grip up or down for a variety of shots.

 

 As I evaluate the Scor's against my Speedblades, I try to keep in mind that I've been playing my gamers for a year and I should have a good handle on all their tricks. So they start out with an inherent advantage that needs consideration, or counter-weighting in the test.

[markb]

After 96 holes, my tally now stands at:

 

 Greens Hit- Scor 67, Speedblade 68.

 Closest to the pin- Scor -39, Speedblade-39, 18 ties.

 

 I think I'm done with my testing because as you can see they are so close to equal that it just doesn't make sense to go further. Neither club is going to pull away at this point.

 

 So I can say the Scor 45 is every bit as good as my set PW, even if it is not substantially better. But in one respect it is substantially better - out of the rough. Out of the rough, it's not even close. The deeper the rough the more advantage the Scor has. I picked one super gnarly rough shot today. Ball was completely buried. Speedblade limped out about 85 yards to the right, but the Scor powered a dead straight shot about 10 feet from the pin. If I switch to the Scor's it will be solely because of the advantage from the rough.

 

I have a 52° coming that I'll bend to 50 and test against my superb GW. That will be a harder test.

[revkev]

After 96 holes, my tally now stands at:

 

 Greens Hit- Scor 67, Speedblade 68.

 Closest to the pin- Scor -39, Speedblade-39, 18 ties.

 

 I think I'm done with my testing because as you can see they are so close to equal that it just doesn't make sense to go further. Neither club is going to pull away at this point.

 

 So I can say the Scor 45 is every bit as good as my set PW, even if it is not substantially better. But in one respect it is substantially better - out of the rough. Out of the rough, it's not even close. The deeper the rough the more advantage the Scor has. I picked one super gnarly rough shot today. Ball was completely buried. Speedblade limped out about 85 yards to the right, but the Scor powered a dead straight shot about 10 feet from the pin. If I switch to the Scor's it will be solely because of the advantage from the rough.

 

I have a 52° coming that I'll bend to 50 and test against my superb GW. That will be a harder test.

Why didn't you just do a 50? Did you get the lighter shaft in this one?

 

Also have you tried to compare the two clubs in regards to workability. Of course unless we are Bubba like we aren't curving a 45 very much so I'm thinking up and down here. Last pain in the butt question, not really pain in the butt because for players at our level every little bit counts, if the two are dead even and the SCOR has the advantage out of the rough can we conclude that your gamer has the advantage from the fairway?

 

Really the one big difference between what you and I are finding, besides 15 yards, is trajectory. I have no trouble launching the SCOR higher if need be, but of course the shaft on mine matches my set more closely. The normal shot is more boring than my gamer but that's not a bad thing. When you watch the pros live they generally hit their wedges lower for control and allow spin to stop the ball. That's the type of shot I get with my SCORs. I can also hit a nice little knock down with these and then there are the part shots.

 

SCOR has an entire system for part shots. They call for three at each level as does Pelz and others. I find that I'm capable of mastering two so that's what I go with. I have a full and 3/4 swing with each of my wedges at three different grip points. BTW the full first grip down dot is what I use as stock so that I can go up or down with each club.

[markb]

I bought a 52 instead of a

 

Why didn't you just do a 50? Did you get the lighter shaft in this one?

Also have you tried to compare the two clubs in regards to workability. Of course unless we are Bubba like we aren't curving a 45 very much so I'm thinking up and down here. Last pain in the butt question, not really pain in the butt because for players at our level every little bit counts, if the two are dead even and the SCOR has the advantage out of the rough can we conclude that your gamer has the advantage from the fairway?

Really the one big difference between what you and I are finding, besides 15 yards, is trajectory. I have no trouble launching the SCOR higher if need be, but of course the shaft on mine matches my set more closely. The normal shot is more boring than my gamer but that's not a bad thing. When you watch the pros live they generally hit their wedges lower for control and allow spin to stop the ball. That's the type of shot I get with my SCORs. I can also hit a nice little knock down with these and then there are the part shots.

SCOR has an entire system for part shots. They call for three at each level as does Pelz and others. I find that I'm capable of mastering two so that's what I go with. I have a full and 3/4 swing with each of my wedges at three different grip points. BTW the full first grip down dot is what I use as stock so that I can go up or down with each club.

 

I bought a 52 instead of a 50 because I paid $29 for it used vice $135 or more new.   I never pay MSRP for anything.   I haven't popped for a 41 or a 55 yet because I haven't seen them cheap enough yet.

 

No, I never tried to differently flight my shots.   I was trying to just aim at a flag and get as close as I could every time from 135.    I did see my Scor get up occasionally as I learned to hit it better, but in general the SB had the higher ball flight.   In general the SB would get over trees that were about 5 to 10 feet higher than the trees the Scor could clear at the apex of its trajectory.    I didn't want to mess with differently flighted attempts in order to keep my test to just apples to apples comparisons.

[revkev]

Thanks - I suspected I'd get the price answer but had to ask because SCOR is not keen on what bending does to its sole.  That's part of their sales pitch - you can buy a wedge in the loft that you want without having to bend it and because their sole is versitile you get all the bounce in one (equipment guys have told me their sole is actually three bounces in one.)

 

I've only brought up the trajectory stuff for your own personal consideration (do I bag this or not.)  For the test it could get insane. 

 

Really for my own personal considertation there's the matter of how does the club perform around the green just as much as from 120 or 105.  This is especially the case with the GW.  I've felt handcuffed without a GW that was versititle around the green. 

 

I'm very happy to have one in the bag again.  Hit 80 shots around the green on my way into work this morning from every lie imaginable in bermuda rough including even a handful from a bare lie in the middle of growing grass.

[markb]

I confess I hadn't even thought about what a bend would do to the sole and since these Scor's are diggers and I'm bending strong, it'll make this 52 EVEN more of a digger.   Yikes.   Maybe I better try to get a real 50 and just resell this one.

 

Check that, I just DID buy a 50, 54, and 58 for $99 total.   So I'll immediately resell the 52 and test the others against my GW, SW and LW.

[Kenny B]

I can see me going for the 50 and 46 to match my 54 and 58. However, I don't know if I can go to a 9-iron equivalent. Not sure how that would flight with my swing, such as it is.

[revkev]

I can see me going for the 50 and 46 to match my 54 and 58. However, I don't know if I can go to a 9-iron equivalent. Not sure how that would flight with my swing, such as it is.

You might be pleasantly surprised if you tried it.

[Kenny B]

You might be pleasantly surprised if you tried it.

 

You are right. I might give it a try over the winter.

Now... On your post to new member LDKliewer yesterday, I am liking you more and more! Agree about the scotch!!

 

Play well.

[revkev]

Thanks Kenny, it was a very nice scotch to celebrate a member's promotion. Pretty cool, I've been with this young man through some down times in his life. Was fortunate enough to perform his wedding, bless his first house, baptize their baby and so it made sense to toast the promotion, in moderation of course.

[markb]

I received my 50, 52, 54 and 58 Scor's today.  The 52 was about 1" over-long, clearly a custom job, so I didn't hit it.  The other three had been reshafted with S300's all in odd lengths with mismatched grips.  So I put short extenders (less than 1/2") in them to proper staggered lengths and regripped them all.

 

I took them to the range for chipping and full shot practice.   First I will say that on full shots they all launched nice and high, equal to my ATV wedges in 50, 55 and 60 which are all shafted with KBS Tours.   That was a bit surprising.  Gapping was perfectly in synch with my existing clubs as well, the Scor 58 went a little further than the ATV 60, like you would expect.   Scor 50 - 122, 54 about 112, and Scor 58 about 90-95.  All felt exactly like the Scor 45 that I have been hitting for a couple of weeks now.   Very easy to aim, very consistent, same swing worked for all.  Felt like familiar friends.

 

Chipping was an eye-opener.   This is the first time these clubs have felt very soft and "buttery" (I hate that adjective in golf) to me.   I noticed a definite feel difference for the better with the Scor's.   They were less clicky than the ATV's.   This surprised me because I did not notice it with full shots.   I did about 20 iterations of 5 balls with a Scor, then 5 with my ATV's at holes ranging from 5 yards to 30 yards away, using either the 54 Scor vs 55 ATV, or the 58 Scor vs 60 ATV.   Some were flops, some were closed face runners.   The Scor's showed tighter dispersion most of the time, regardless of the shot.  

 

Here's the weird thing, they naturally went quite a bit further right than the ATV's but in very tight groups.   I had to check my grip and set up several times but the Scor faces looked straight to me.   Still, Scor chips went right.   I think this might be because of their heavier heads causing me to lag on impact a bit, I dunno.   Anyway, if I adjusted my aiming point or closed the face, I could get them to go straight, but natural set-ups went right.

 

I prefer to do a lot of putter-chips whenever I can get away with them, which is most of the time.   No wrist break, just a popping pendulum putter stroke.   I'll do this on shots up to about 40 yards.   It's generally a low trajectory, low spin shot.   I found that the Scor's soles really like this kind of stroke.   Perhaps this is why they gave me tight dispersions.   They also seemed to give me more spin that the same stroke with the ATV's.   Flops were also very easy to accomplish and had more spin than my gamers.   This surprised me because the set of used Scors I bought cheap were fairly well used with some face wear and browning.   Didn't seem to matter that their milled faces were worn though.

 

Based on what I saw today, I could put em all in the bag tomorrow with no fear of giving any strokes away.  Whether or not they'd help me cut off a few more strokes, I dunno, but they certainly wouldn't hurt me, I know that.   It's hard to think that those small little heads really don't trade away forgiveness, but they don't.

 

Now to try them out of the sand!

[markb]

I posted my previous comments because Rev encouraged me to experience the pleasure and versatility of the Scor's around the green with short shots.  He was right!

 

But then I went back and read the challenges again that launched this community labs testing, and I realized I hadn't directly addressed them in my previous posts.  I'm not an official labs tester, I'm just a remora whose sucker is stuck to this big fish, but it would probably help if I recapped the challenges:

 

"Challenge 1)  Cavity back short irons are forgiving: They aren't - Iron Byron has proven that. On toe and high face hits, SCOR iron dispersion was up to 71 feet better. "

 

In response to this, I'd say that the forgiveness characteristics of a cavity-backed iron that are so important in a 3 - 7 iron become almost immaterial with the shorter sticks because we duffers tend to hit our shorter sticks closer to center anyway.  Forgiveness dividends in the longer cavity-backed irons come with the low and lateral mishits.   A duffer rarely mishits his 4 iron fat and if he does it's going nowhere anyway.   But he misses a lot of wedges fat and having the mass of his club face moved low and to the perimeter like in a cavity-backed short iron will make for poor results if his impact occurs high or toey.  A traditional wedge will produce a better result for him with such a high or toey hit.   These kind of high and toey hits are more common still from the rough and I can emphatically state that the Scor's are significantly better at shots from the rough than a cavity-backed GI iron.  The deeper the rough, the more pronounced their advantage becomes.   For a "bomb and gouge" player, this sort of advantage could be a stunning difference maker.

"Challenge 2) A conventional wedge is as consistent as anything on full swings - The truth is, a conventional wedge design, with a low center of gravity and thin upper face, was never meant to be swung full. But we use them that way. SCOR progressive weighting design, along with the turn interaction advantages of the V Sole, result in significant dispersion gains. "

 

I agree with the first part of the statement -- a conventional wedge is probably as consistent as anything on a full swing.   Overall, on shots from the fairway, my Scor was as consistent as my cavity backed PW.  It was not more so, but also not significantly less so.   When shots taken from the rough are considered separately, the Scor has a Secretariat-like dispersion lead over a cavity-backed wedge.  

 

I'm not sure I agree with the second part of the statement.  I like the Scor's V sole and progressive weighting, I just can't connect it to dispersion gains.

[revkev]

I told you about the short game stuff - and wait until you try them out of the trap - I went from - oh boy will I get it out and on the green (yes I know I'm also a low handicapper but traps and I have never gotten along, I'm sure it has to do with my angle of attack) to no big deal, I will get this up and down 1/3 of the time and taking more than 3 is so rare that it doesn't enter the equation (I almost had a disaster a couple of weeks back with Mr. Theo but a pitch out of high rough with my 60 saved my bacon.)

 

I hit a chip at Stadium course that was the best I've ever hit in my life given the degree of difficulty - it was one of those where you had to hit it as if you were trying to stop it just over the crest of a mound in the green so that it could trickle down the slope to the pin - I hit it perfectly.  BTW #13 there is a very under rated hole that needs to be seen in person for it to be appreciated.

 

Also not mentioned are the part shots.  I had one yesterday, meant to lay up to 105, hit it to 97 instead, back pin, non-SCOR would have brought a futile attempt to hit my 85 yard club farther.  Instead I took the 105, gripped down to the first dot, 3/4 swing, hole high inside of 10 feet.  No fear what so ever of any result other than hole high with that shot a good lie and very little wind.

 

However as you've stated that wasn't the point of this particular test - it's about full shots mano a mano vs. our cavity back clubs.  I appreciate that Mark has hit shots from the rough.  So have I but sadly I didn't clearly define which ones were from the rough and which weren't (my bad.)  I just have overall distances from the pin and in the case of the PW vs. the 44 I have dispersion patterns.  I know that the SCORs have been better from the rough but unfortunately I don't have the numbers that I wanted to back that assertion up.  The dispersion overall is as SCOR says it will be, tighter to the target.  I don't know how you'd prove their final statement other than to say there has to be some reason why the dispersion pattern is tighter and so it may well be the weighting and sole of the club.  The divots that I take with the SCORs are certainly shallower than with the Wilson's.

 

I head to the LM at 1 today for the final test.  As official testers we were asked to provide a LM session.  In my book Mark is every bit as official as the rest of us, perhaps more so given that he put his money where his mouth is and so I'm hoping he takes up the challenge and does a monitor session also.

[markb]

I told you about the short game stuff - and wait until you try them out of the trap - I went from - oh boy will I get it out and on the green (yes I know I'm also a low handicapper but traps and I have never gotten along, I'm sure it has to do with my angle of attack) to no big deal, I will get this up and down 1/3 of the time and taking more than 3 is so rare that it doesn't enter the equation (I almost had a disaster a couple of weeks back with Mr. Theo but a pitch out of high rough with my 60 saved my bacon.)

 

I hit a chip at Stadium course that was the best I've ever hit in my life given the degree of difficulty - it was one of those where you had to hit it as if you were trying to stop it just over the crest of a mound in the green so that it could trickle down the slope to the pin - I hit it perfectly.  BTW #13 there is a very under rated hole that needs to be seen in person for it to be appreciated.

 

Also not mentioned are the part shots.  I had one yesterday, meant to lay up to 105, hit it to 97 instead, back pin, non-SCOR would have brought a futile attempt to hit my 85 yard club farther.  Instead I took the 105, gripped down to the first dot, 3/4 swing, hole high inside of 10 feet.  No fear what so ever of any result other than hole high with that shot a good lie and very little wind.

 

However as you've stated that wasn't the point of this particular test - it's about full shots mano a mano vs. our cavity back clubs.  I appreciate that Mark has hit shots from the rough.  So have I but sadly I didn't clearly define which ones were from the rough and which weren't (my bad.)  I just have overall distances from the pin and in the case of the PW vs. the 44 I have dispersion patterns.  I know that the SCORs have been better from the rough but unfortunately I don't have the numbers that I wanted to back that assertion up.  The dispersion overall is as SCOR says it will be, tighter to the target.  I don't know how you'd prove their final statement other than to say there has to be some reason why the dispersion pattern is tighter and so it may well be the weighting and sole of the club.  The divots that I take with the SCORs are certainly shallower than with the Wilson's.

 

I head to the LM at 1 today for the final test.  As official testers we were asked to provide a LM session.  In my book Mark is every bit as official as the rest of us, perhaps more so given that he put his money where his mouth is and so I'm hoping he takes up the challenge and does a monitor session also.

 

About 1/3 of my total test shots were hit from the rough, ranging from first cut to buried lies.   In my testing the Scor 45 would lose a bit of ground on the 2/3's fairway lies, but then would make it all back up and then some on the 1/3 rough shots.   A typical 10 shot slice of my tests would look like this:   From the fairways: Scor wins 3, Speedblade 4.  From the rough: Scor wins 2, Speedblade 1.    If I were to look at only fairway shots, the Speedblade appears to have a 57% - 43% advantage.  If we look at only rough shots, the Scor appears to be TWICE as good as Speedblade!   Put them together and the two clubs are dead even.  

[revkev]

Here's the advantage to being a shorter hitter, I can't imagine missing greens with a PW.  I might hit a few in the fringe but it's been well under 10 percent missed greens and under 5 percent that I couldn't hit with a putter throughout this test period. 

[revkev]

Just got back from the LM session - I haven't really looked hard at the data yet but at first blush it seemed to verify something that both Mark and I have observed, the SCOR launches a bit lower and spins more - Again though I'd like to highlight the fact that this is relative.  Both Mark and I are lower handicap golfers using GI clubs, we are going to launch them high, the SCORs were very much in line with the expected for a golfer of my age and ability.

 

The pro at the place was impressed, nice grouping, nice ball flight, consistent, baby draws every one.

[Kenny B]

I received my 50, 52, 54 and 58 Scor's today.  The 52 was about 1" over-long, clearly a custom job, so I didn't hit it.  The other three had been reshafted with S300's all in odd lengths with mismatched grips.  So I put short extenders (less than 1/2") in them to proper staggered lengths and regripped them all.

 

I took them to the range for chipping and full shot practice.   First I will say that on full shots they all launched nice and high, equal to my ATV wedges in 50, 55 and 60 which are all shafted with KBS Tours.   That was a bit surprising.  Gapping was perfectly in synch with my existing clubs as well, the Scor 58 went a little further than the ATV 60, like you would expect.   Scor 50 - 122, 54 about 112, and Scor 58 about 90-95.  All felt exactly like the Scor 45 that I have been hitting for a couple of weeks now.   Very easy to aim, very consistent, same swing worked for all.  Felt like familiar friends.

 

Chipping was an eye-opener.   This is the first time these clubs have felt very soft and "buttery" (I hate that adjective in golf) to me.   I noticed a definite feel difference for the better with the Scor's.   They were less clicky than the ATV's.   This surprised me because I did not notice it with full shots.   I did about 20 iterations of 5 balls with a Scor, then 5 with my ATV's at holes ranging from 5 yards to 30 yards away, using either the 54 Scor vs 55 ATV, or the 58 Scor vs 60 ATV.   Some were flops, some were closed face runners.   The Scor's showed tighter dispersion most of the time, regardless of the shot.  

 

Here's the weird thing, they naturally went quite a bit further right than the ATV's but in very tight groups.   I had to check my grip and set up several times but the Scor faces looked straight to me.   Still, Scor chips went right.   I think this might be because of their heavier heads causing me to lag on impact a bit, I dunno.   Anyway, if I adjusted my aiming point or closed the face, I could get them to go straight, but natural set-ups went right.

 

I prefer to do a lot of putter-chips whenever I can get away with them, which is most of the time.   No wrist break, just a popping pendulum putter stroke.   I'll do this on shots up to about 40 yards.   It's generally a low trajectory, low spin shot.   I found that the Scor's soles really like this kind of stroke.   Perhaps this is why they gave me tight dispersions.   They also seemed to give me more spin that the same stroke with the ATV's.   Flops were also very easy to accomplish and had more spin than my gamers.   This surprised me because the set of used Scors I bought cheap were fairly well used with some face wear and browning.   Didn't seem to matter that their milled faces were worn though.

 

Based on what I saw today, I could put em all in the bag tomorrow with no fear of giving any strokes away.  Whether or not they'd help me cut off a few more strokes, I dunno, but they certainly wouldn't hurt me, I know that.   It's hard to think that those small little heads really don't trade away forgiveness, but they don't.

 

Now to try them out of the sand!

Have you. Heckled the lie of those wedges? SCOR builds them to match your current iron set. My i20s are 1.5 flat, but I remember talking to them about lie angle (but don't remember exactly what the issue was). It seemed that their wedges had a different standard lie than most other wedges. They made mine +1 inch and 1 flat. A flatter lie might make the ball go a little right.

 

The putter-chip is one of my favorites with my 58 when I am short-sided. I love the feel of the SCOR around the green, but it took me awhile to get used to the correct distance. The Ping wedges I had been using were a lot hotter and when I tried the SCOR I always came up short. After getting used to them, they are much easier to control.

 

I think you will like them from the sand too!

[Kenny B]

Have you. Heckled the lie of those wedges?

"Have you checked the lie..."

Darn spelling helper!

[revkev]

"Have you checked the lie..."

Darn spelling helper!

I like heckled better.

[markb]

Have you. Heckled the lie of those wedges? SCOR builds them to match your current iron set. My i20s are 1.5 flat, but I remember talking to them about lie angle (but don't remember exactly what the issue was). It seemed that their wedges had a different standard lie than most other wedges. They made mine +1 inch and 1 flat. A flatter lie might make the ball go a little right.

 

The putter-chip is one of my favorites with my 58 when I am short-sided. I love the feel of the SCOR around the green, but it took me awhile to get used to the correct distance. The Ping wedges I had been using were a lot hotter and when I tried the SCOR I always came up short. After getting used to them, they are much easier to control.

 

I think you will like them from the sand too!

I haven't adjusted the lie on any of the wedge and on the straight full shots they are good and straight so I'll probably stick with what they are.   I'm the type who checks his divots regularly and I'm constantly bending clubs if I see anything toe or heel deep.   All the Scor's are diggers, but they dig pretty even trenches so far, so I'm not suspicious of lie problems yet.  

 

On the little baby chips, the deflection right is pretty big, like 10 degrees.   I've never noticed this sort of offline behavior with any wedge of any kind before, but it is super easy to correct once you know it is coming by closing just a bit or shifting your aim point.  When I intentionally open them for flops, I see no problems.   It's just weird to see a tight cluster of balls with one wedge settle pin high 4 feet right and another more widely dispersed cluster from the other wedge all over the place.

 

I agree with you about the feel and consistency and hottness issues.  The Scor's are softer with more spin so you have to throw them farther to the hole, but since they are softer, it's easier to do this with confidence.

 

You raise a good point that all buyers of used Scor's should remember -- basically they are all coming out of the shop customized to their original owners specs and there is no way to tell what those specs are.  I've bought 5 Scors now and they've all had odd shafts lengths.   You should probably stick them all on a bending machine first and measure them first, the bend them for lie to match your current set before you test them.  Don't bend them for loft, as Rev pointed out.

 

I should also note that I didn't really like the Scor computer's recommendation of which of their clubs "matched" my Speedblades.   My Stock SB's are about 1/2" longer than "normal" clubs and step in 5 degree increments. 45, 50, 55, and 60.   Scor recommended I get a 44, 48, 52, 56, and 60 in standard loft and lies.   I think Scor standard length would be shorter than my SB's and basically I would be swapping 4 clubs for 5 if I followed their matrix.   I didn't like that.  I've got a 45, 50, 54 and 58 instead.

[Kenny B]

 

That said, I didn't really like the Scor computer's recommendation of which of their clubs "matched" my Speedblades.   Stock SB's are about 1/2" longer than "normal" clubs and step in 5 degree increments. 45, 50, 55, and 60.   Scor recommended at 44, 48, 52, 56, and 60 in standard loft and lies.   Basically swapping 4 clubs for 5.   I didn't like that.  I've got a 45, 50, 54 and 58 instead.

 

I didn't like their recommendations either.  I put in my current club specs (Ping i20 through U wedge and I was using my old eye 2+ SW and LW.  Their recommendations totally ignored my gap wedge and gave me results to fill after the PW.  The SCOR guys were nice to talk to on the phone, and I have no issues with the setup I received.  

 

You and Rev have done a wonderful job on testing these wedges.  I am sure that everyone at MGS has benefitted from your experiences.  I know I have.  Many thanks, even though it will probably cost me a couple more wedges!!

[revkev]

You are very kind Kenny I think both of us want any edge we can get. I also agree that I wasn't keen on exactly what SCOR recommended but in regards to specs for the clubs I ordered I'm sure they were right. Theirs are already flat relatively speaking so if you are 2 degrees flat you need one from them. Speed ladies are an inch over "standard" SCOR 1/2 inch so the translation is another 1/2 inch.