The Edison Challenge featuring Edison 2.0 Wedges

[bens197]

On 11/7/2023 at 11:07 AM, PMookie said:

Okay, got out to chip Saturday to see how these perform vs my Edels. I worked around the chipping green going back-and-forth chipping with the 53* Edison and the 54* Edel. I am a HORRIBLE chipper, major yips, and I generally use a chip-and-run technique with my 8 iron whenever I can. You can see from the pictures that with the tightly mown Bermuda  areas around these elevated greens there are some super tight lies, and for me with these yips, I’m not comfortable with “loft”. So, when you see the pics of the results you’ll understand…

I had 12 AVX and I started chipping 6 with one wedge, 6 with the other, then at the end I hit all 12 with one, then the other. I hit from the same areas with both wedges trying to get the “fluffiest” lie I could get under these conditions, and also the tightest I could get. My last sets of 12 were where I just tossed the balls up in the air and then played them from where they ended-up. 
 

A few observations: first, the lack of a variable grind on the Edison was a hindrance for the type of chipping method I use. I stand close to the ball which is off my right toe box, shaft vertical, head toe-down, and I just swing with a putting motion. The head of the Edison dug, opened, etc and balls were consistently lost to the right. Next was a lower ball “flight” from the Edison on all of the chips too. I think it was because the toe couldn’t get under the ball and the face was open a bit. When I tried a different method with the sole now laying flat on the grass, there was still an issue of getting under the ball with the right lie, and again launch was low. Spin seemed higher with the Edison vs the Edel on chips resulting in less roll out and more grab on landing. 
All-in-all, around the green with our tight lies and how I chip, the Edison wasn’t great for me. Again, I use an iron most times and run the ball to the hole, but on the occasion I’m tight to a pin, the grind of the Edel 54* makes it the better option around the green because of its versatility.

This is really good stuff...and about as a fair of a random sample as you could take for a days worth of work.

 

My biggest question for testers entering this program is "do you believe Edison wedges are marketed towards all golfers of all skills or would they be best suited for a 0-5, 5-15 or 15+ handicap?"

[PMookie]

3 hours ago, Lacassem said:

Great info here!

Are you leaning that for you these clubs will most likely be better as full shots?

100%. Yep… 

[PMookie]

2 hours ago, bens197 said:

This is really good stuff...and about as a fair of a random sample as you could take for a days worth of work.

 

My biggest question for testers entering this program is "do you believe Edison wedges are marketed towards all golfers of all skills or would they be best suited for a 0-5, 5-15 or 15+ handicap?"

Man, I’m a 3-4 GHIN and have yips, so I can’t say what a “real 3” would do with them. I think that the lower hcps want grind options, and my recent experience is showing I need it too, so I would therefore say that a higher handicap that doesn’t use the various grinds and just hits “stock” shots would probably be a better choice. What number hcp that is I’m not sure.

[Josh Ross]

3 hours ago, bens197 said:

This is really good stuff...and about as a fair of a random sample as you could take for a days worth of work.

 

My biggest question for testers entering this program is "do you believe Edison wedges are marketed towards all golfers of all skills or would they be best suited for a 0-5, 5-15 or 15+ handicap?"

I'm glad this came up. The common misconception is that these are for high handicaps but we have people as low as +3 that use our wedges. Maybe this isn't supposed to be known yet, but we have some college teams looking to bag them as well. My short game is one of my strengths and I like to get "cute" with my shots. I hit low checkers, nippers, flops, and pretty much anything you can think of and do it with ease. 

I'll link this cool article that came out three years ago that talks about how Tiger grinds his own wedges. He creates his own version of a dual bounce sole, giving more bounce in the leading edge, but also having relief in the back when needed. The sole is offered by most companies but none are quite like Terry's, which is understandable since he is the one who invented it and held the original patent. It's the most versatile sole in the industry and has never seen a lie or shot it didn't like.

That being said, us golfers aren't all made from the same mold. No club will ever work for 100% of people and we know that. But the club will work for all types of golfers for sure. Except lefties, we're trying to make that happen.

[Josh Parker]

18 minutes ago, Josh Ross said:

I'm glad this came up. The common misconception is that these are for high handicaps but we have people as low as +3 that use our wedges. Maybe this isn't supposed to be known yet, but we have some college teams looking to bag them as well. My short game is one of my strengths and I like to get "cute" with my shots. I hit low checkers, nippers, flops, and pretty much anything you can think of and do it with ease. 

I'll link this cool article that came out three years ago that talks about how Tiger grinds his own wedges. He creates his own version of a dual bounce sole, giving more bounce in the leading edge, but also having relief in the back when needed. The sole is offered by most companies but none are quite like Terry's, which is understandable since he is the one who invented it and held the original patent. It's the most versatile sole in the industry and has never seen a lie or shot it didn't like.

That being said, us golfers aren't all made from the same mold. No club will ever work for 100% of people and we know that. But the club will work for all types of golfers for sure. Except lefties, we're trying to make that happen.

Perfect response!  Hope to see some lefty options out there one day. 

[TG8]

3 hours ago, bens197 said:

This is really good stuff...and about as a fair of a random sample as you could take for a days worth of work.

 

My biggest question for testers entering this program is "do you believe Edison wedges are marketed towards all golfers of all skills or would they be best suited for a 0-5, 5-15 or 15+ handicap?"

I cannot give my opinion on that question just yet. But I am a 6 handicap and will definitely add that answer to my review in the near future. 

[bens197]

20 hours ago, PMookie said:

Man, I’m a 3-4 GHIN and have yips, so I can’t say what a “real 3” would do with them. I think that the lower hcps want grind options, and my recent experience is showing I need it too, so I would therefore say that a higher handicap that doesn’t use the various grinds and just hits “stock” shots would probably be a better choice. What number hcp that is I’m not sure.

 

20 hours ago, Josh Ross said:

I'm glad this came up. The common misconception is that these are for high handicaps but we have people as low as +3 that use our wedges. Maybe this isn't supposed to be known yet, but we have some college teams looking to bag them as well. My short game is one of my strengths and I like to get "cute" with my shots. I hit low checkers, nippers, flops, and pretty much anything you can think of and do it with ease. 

I'll link this cool article that came out three years ago that talks about how Tiger grinds his own wedges. He creates his own version of a dual bounce sole, giving more bounce in the leading edge, but also having relief in the back when needed. The sole is offered by most companies but none are quite like Terry's, which is understandable since he is the one who invented it and held the original patent. It's the most versatile sole in the industry and has never seen a lie or shot it didn't like.

That being said, us golfers aren't all made from the same mold. No club will ever work for 100% of people and we know that. But the club will work for all types of golfers for sure. Except lefties, we're trying to make that happen.

 

19 hours ago, TG8 said:

I cannot give my opinion on that question just yet. But I am a 6 handicap and will definitely add that answer to my review in the near future. 

Thanks fellas for all your replies. Perhaps using a specific handicap range is not the best metric however I believe you all understand the point. 
 

I appreciate the insight. Going forward it’ll piece itself together better. 

[Dead Solid Bogey]

Not a lot of hard data here … I am not an official tester but just got 3 Edison wedges. I am  a 9-11 handicap. Short game has became a major weakness because of the deteriorating status of my hands. The Edison’s are heavier than my former wedges but swing much smoother. First major test was to be today… Fortunately or unfortunately as the case maybe, I didn’t need to hit a wedge until the 8th hole. The skies opened up and we got caught in a downpour. My first official shot with the Edison was painfully pathetic. I was more interested in the rain than the shot. We were rained out after 9. Pretty much fair weather golfers in my group, including me. So far everyone is surprised by the weight of the wedges. The other common comment is that I was told if they play as good as they look, I should be very happy. 

[Shapotomous]

I got in some simulator time yesterday to get some data collected for the two Edison wedges and the current gamer wedges.  Listed below are the averages from 10 – 12 shots with each club.  The clusters were pretty good for all the clubs and the face impact spots were about the size of a quarter shaded slightly toward the toe.  The Edison 57 direction was really dialed in, the avg distance offline was less than a foot to the right.  I was taking about a ¾ swing with each club to see what distance I was getting as opposed to trying to hit a specific yardage.  I have been doing the specific yardage testing while playing and am getting better feel with the necessary swing length for the Edisons to hit target yardages. 

I was surprised at the height on the Edison 53* & the RTX-3 shots.  Based on the impact spot on the screen I felt the Edison 53* shots were a lower shot than the 57* and I felt the RTX-3 were higher.  Maybe its an issue trying to get that data from wedge shots indoors.  I will be trying to get some on course launch monitor data with the Mevo this weekend for comparison.

I was also a little surprised the 57* Edison was very distance comparable to the 54* SM9.  I thought it would have been closer to the 58* RTX3.

 

Edison 53*    Club Speed Ball Speed        Carry          Total       Height       Attack Ang.     Side (ft)      Spin Rate   Dyn. Loft

Average               63.3       67.5       74.9       78.8       46           -2.6        9.4R       8188      41.4

Consistency        1.1         2.1         3.4         3.2         3             1.1         1.6         620        0.9

 

SM9 54*        Club Speed Ball Speed        Carry          Total       Height       Attack Ang.     Side (ft)      Spin Rate   Dyn. Loft

Average               62.6       63.9       68.7       71.7       43           -3.0        8.4R       8764      44.1

Consistency        0.7         1.4         2.4         2.7         3             1.4         1.7         880        0.9

 

Edison 57*  Club Speed Ball Speed           Carry          Total       Height       Attack Ang.     Side (ft)      Spin Rate   Dyn. Loft

Average               62.4       64.6       69.9       72.8       44           -2.8        0.7R       8750      43.8

Consistency        1.0         1.6         2.5         2.4         2             0.7         1.2         526        0.6

 

Clev. RTX-3 58* Club Spd   Ball Spd        Carry          Total       Height       Attack Ang.     Side (ft)      Spin Rate   Dyn. Loft

Average               63.1       59.9       62.0       63.9       40           -2.5        6.4R       9324      47.3

Consistency        1.2         1.5         2.4         2.4         2             1.0         0.5         576        0.6

Edited November 10, 2023 by Shapotomous

[Josh Ross]

Interesting data, @Shapotomous. What do you think causes your ball speed to be lower than club speed with the RTX-3? I don't know that I've seen that before so I'm just curious.

Looking forward to the outside data, the benefits of our clubs are usually much more noticable off grass on real shots vs mats. Keep up the great work!

[Shapotomous]

6 hours ago, Josh Ross said:

Interesting data, @Shapotomous. What do you think causes your ball speed to be lower than club speed with the RTX-3? I don't know that I've seen that before so I'm just curious.

Looking forward to the outside data, the benefits of our clubs are usually much more noticable off grass on real shots vs mats. Keep up the great work!

When using the rtx3, i  tend to have the ball slide up the face and miss short and right.  I guess that is why ball speed is lower.  I always thought it was because the sole grind didnt match my swing for good turf interaction.  However it is really good out out sand and stayed in the bag for that reason.

[Shapotomous]

I was talking to someone today about how we both liked the Edison clubhead shape.  We were trying to figure out what it is that makes it appealing.  We decided the compact size is part of it but the SM9 face length seems the same.  Studying it closer it was the face height at the toe and heel that we decided makes the difference.  Comparing it to the SM9 the toe height of the Edison is not as tall.  However the heel height of the Edison is a little higher than the SM9.  The lower toe and higher heel combines for a top line curve that is not as steep as the SM9 which we decided is what we like.

It is really hard for me to get the correct angle to see an accurate overlay picture of the outline of the SM9 behind the Edison but here is an attempt.  The higher toe of the SM9 can be seen but the heel height difference is harder to capture.

The side by side makes the difference in top line curve noticeable...

[TG8]

Outdoor test results for little 15 yard greenside shots in fluffy lies. GC3 used to calculate. Just focused on loft and spin since dispersion from that close shouldnt be a factor. 

 

[Shapotomous]

I collected some Edison 53* & 57* course data with the mevo this weekend and the shot height data was what I expected.  The avg height was lower than the indoor unit was indicating by about 10'.  I feel I had the same type contact for controlling trajectory both indoors and outside.  I was using metal dots on Snell MTBX balls.

I think maybe it was the Trackman struggling to get height data accurately indoors.  The other difference is the indoor unit uses Titleist RCT balls.  Maybe they fly higher than Snells?   I am discounting the mat effect because I have hit the Edisons off a mat at home in the yard and the shot height is closer to the mevo course numbers than the indoor Trackman numbers.  I have hit both Snell and Pro-v's at home with similar flight trajectories.

I wasn't able to do quite as much data collection as I would have liked, the weather was too good and a wave of groups were coming through where I had set up.  If I can get out through the week there should be less players and I can get some comparison data for the SM9 and Cleveland.

 

 

[GolfSpy BOS]

A question for the testers!

Do you find that your shots have a consistent distance and trajectory, even when you didn't strike them just right?

Edison finds that a staggering amount of WedgeFit submissions say the most common miss is to come up short due to a miss-hit high on the face. Is that something you've struggled with and has it improved?

I know I have some interesting results from my last range session I'll be sharing soon.

 

@PMookie @Shapotomous @TG8 @Placasse61

[CFreddie]

1 minute ago, GolfSpy BOS said:

A question for the testers!

Do you find that your shots have a consistent distance and trajectory, even when you didn't strike them just right?

Edison finds that a staggering amount of WedgeFit submissions say the most common miss is to come up short due to a miss-hit high on the face. Is that something you've struggled with and has it improved?

I know I have some interesting results from my last range session I'll be sharing soon.

 

@PMookie @Shapotomous @TG8 @Placasse61

Curious to learn more on this as well!

[Shapotomous]

21 hours ago, GolfSpy BOS said:

A question for the testers!

Do you find that your shots have a consistent distance and trajectory, even when you didn't strike them just right?

Edison finds that a staggering amount of WedgeFit submissions say the most common miss is to come up short due to a miss-hit high on the face. Is that something you've struggled with and has it improved?

I know I have some interesting results from my last range session I'll be sharing soon.

 

@PMookie @Shapotomous @TG8 @Placasse61

The short, right miss happens often with my 58* Cleveland, less so with the 54* SM9 and 50* Sub70.  Although when those two are mishit it is short & right, never long & left.  I can feel the club slide under the ball at impact and the contact higher on the face with those misses.  I always wondered if my swing path didnt match the bounce of the sole.

The Edisons have  dual grind sole.  I have noticed with them, 53* & 57*, I haven't seen this short, right miss when using the front, leading edge bounce of the sole.  I am consistently able to feel like I am hitting down and compressing the ball without the feeling of the club sliding under the ball.  It it the same feeling as the rest of my irons.  The height of the trajectory is also lower with the Edisons on those type of shots.  Turf conditions have been firm the last month, we haven't had much rain to soften things up.  Maybe that contributes to the success of the leading edge bounce shots.

I have tried a lot of shots using the back, trail edge bounce of the sole with the 57* and see higher face impact on the club.  I have not seen a loss of distance compared to the shots with higher face impact on the 58* Cleveland.   To be fair my distance control is still not dialed in all the way and I tend to be about 5 yards long which is probably related to the 1* loft difference in the clubs, but I have not had the 10 yard short and right miss that would show up with the Cleveland. 

I haven't tried the back edge bounce shot in play with the 53*, I've just hit them as practice shots.  I can get the higher trajectory but don't seem to have a real need for this type of shot in that yardage since that seems to overlap with the shots I play more naturally with the 57*.  It seemed for my game that option with the 53* may come up around the greens with short chip shots.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Shapotomous

[PMookie]

22 hours ago, GolfSpy BOS said:

A question for the testers!

Do you find that your shots have a consistent distance and trajectory, even when you didn't strike them just right?

Edison finds that a staggering amount of WedgeFit submissions say the most common miss is to come up short due to a miss-hit high on the face. Is that something you've struggled with and has it improved?

I know I have some interesting results from my last range session I'll be sharing soon.

 

@PMookie @Shapotomous @TG8 @Placasse61

Haven’t had the “opportunity” to hit high on the face so I can’t speak to this specifically, but I am suspecting that the mishits across the lower face from heel to toe seem to go a consistent distance and have a similar trajectory. With a different weight distribution in the head of the Edison misses more than a few millimeters across the face seem to have less drop off in distance than my Edels. I’m getting on a monitor soon to actually take a look at distance consistency, but what I’m seeing shows to be positive.

[TG8]

On 11/16/2023 at 8:59 AM, GolfSpy BOS said:

A question for the testers!

Do you find that your shots have a consistent distance and trajectory, even when you didn't strike them just right?

Edison finds that a staggering amount of WedgeFit submissions say the most common miss is to come up short due to a miss-hit high on the face. Is that something you've struggled with and has it improved?

I know I have some interesting results from my last range session I'll be sharing soon.

 

@PMookie @Shapotomous @TG8 @Placasse61

Definitely seeing more consistent distances with the edisons than my gamers on mishits.  Interesting enough I had a 20 handicap friend test them with his gamers and he was hitting them noticeably better. I will talk about this more in my review 

[Dead Solid Bogey]

Played my 49° on the course for the really real first time. Never had a need for a full force shot with the club during the round. Had a few 1/2 to 3/4 swing shots. All had lower trajectory than my normal gamer. Didn’t really mishit any of those shots. None went shorter than desired and most went a little longer than I was expecting. Good stopping action. This is highly subjective, but the club just felt good swinging it. Felt like it was in a slot. Will spend a couple of more rounds focusing in on the 49° then will start to see what the 55° can do. 

[PMookie]

Got on Trackman today… Definitely interesting!!! 

[Shapotomous]

I got out to play 12 holes yesterday before dark and had 5 shots come into play with the Edisons.  It was very windy so my focus was a lower trajectory and I was able to keep the ball down as I wanted.  These were my normal 3/4 swing distances of about 75 yards for the 53* and 65 yards for the 57*.  The line was real good and consistent at a few yards left of the pin.  Two of those shots were a little on the toe-y side, enough to feel it and the face impact smudge confirmed it.  The distance was as good on those two and the roll out was about 6' from the ball mark compared to less than 3' on the other shots that were center hit.  Unfortunately only made one of those putts.  I am getting better feel at distance control with the lower trajectory, I had been long on most shots but now I am hitting about pin high or just past.

I had three greenside chip shots to navigate and got two of those up and down.  I think I am preferring the 53* around the green and opening and closing the face as needed.  For some reason I have better distance control for those shots with the 53 than the 57.

[GolfSpy BOS]

Range Update! 

I had a little free time one afternoon and was able to get out for some range action with the Edison 2.0 Wedge.  The Range I went to was mats only, but these mats are actually really good at preventing the chunk-bounce-clean shot.  You know the one, you hit it a little fat, but you end up skipping into the ball and it looks and feels like good contact?  Yeah, not on these mats.  They allow you to dig in and chunk it, so while it wasn't perfect on-course action it was better than hitting off of my mat.  I was excited to see what difference I would see outside.

So first thing you'll notice is that the range balls were hurting and begging to be put out to pasture.  A number of the balls I warmed up with were actually cracked.  This is by no means a perfect data session, but I saw enough in the trends to believe I have some reliable insights.  

If we take a look at the 20 or so balls each here is the Rapsodo trajectory (Edision is the "AW" and the Edel is the "PW"):

 

 

The Edison once again produced a lower flight on average highlighted by the shot tracers above.  You'll notice that on these shots the Edison had a more penetrating flight, but carried further with 1MPH greater ball speed.  

And here is a summary of the session data.  On average I had the same club and ball speed with the Edison launching a little lower, peaking 5 feet lower, and carrying 2 yards less.  This all lines up with what I felt like I was seeing visually and with my prior results hitting into a net.

Before I get to the dispersion charts I just wanted to highlight my impact pattern during this session. Here are two shots from the Rapsodo's Impact camera, one again the Edison is first:

 

And if we look at the collection of ball marks we can really see the difference between the Edison and Edel for me.  I don't think it would be wrong to say that I was dialed in with my gamer in the Edel and I had a lot more impact variation with the Edison.  I chalk all of this up to the shaft which I am just not as used to.  But I also think it is important to highlight that I started in the heel and worked my way out during the session, I wasn't bouncing all around from shot-to-shot.  As for the Edel, well I'm not sure I've ever had a session quite that good, but man was it fun to see.

 

But, now let's look at the dispersion where I had some surprising results.  The Edison 2.0 Wedge grouping was significantly tighter, by a lot!  The general pattern was the same but all of the Edisons shots fit within the dispersion circle of the Edel.  Overall I had 12 yards less lateral dispersion and 13 yards less distance dispersion.  I can only chalk that up to the design of the Edison wedge creating  more forgiveness and producing some stellar results despite my variations in face contact.

 

We're running low on daylight and warm temps but I'm working on getting a fun round in that will focus almost exclusively on this Edison 2.0 45* wedge.  But until then I'll likely continue to repeat some of these tests either at the range when I can or back in the garage utilizing the data I can get from the Rapsodo Unit to compare the two.

See you soon for the next update!

 

[Josh Parker]

6 hours ago, GolfSpy BOS said:

Range Update! 

I had a little free time one afternoon and was able to get out for some range action with the Edison 2.0 Wedge.  The Range I went to was mats only, but these mats are actually really good at preventing the chunk-bounce-clean shot.  You know the one, you hit it a little fat, but you end up skipping into the ball and it looks and feels like good contact?  Yeah, not on these mats.  They allow you to dig in and chunk it, so while it wasn't perfect on-course action it was better than hitting off of my mat.  I was excited to see what difference I would see outside.

So first thing you'll notice is that the range balls were hurting and begging to be put out to pasture.  A number of the balls I warmed up with were actually cracked.  This is by no means a perfect data session, but I saw enough in the trends to believe I have some reliable insights.  

If we take a look at the 20 or so balls each here is the Rapsodo trajectory (Edision is the "AW" and the Edel is the "PW"):

 

 

The Edison once again produced a lower flight on average highlighted by the shot tracers above.  You'll notice that on these shots the Edison had a more penetrating flight, but carried further with 1MPH greater ball speed.  

And here is a summary of the session data.  On average I had the same club and ball speed with the Edison launching a little lower, peaking 5 feet lower, and carrying 2 yards less.  This all lines up with what I felt like I was seeing visually and with my prior results hitting into a net.

Before I get to the dispersion charts I just wanted to highlight my impact pattern during this session. Here are two shots from the Rapsodo's Impact camera, one again the Edison is first:

 

And if we look at the collection of ball marks we can really see the difference between the Edison and Edel for me.  I don't think it would be wrong to say that I was dialed in with my gamer in the Edel and I had a lot more impact variation with the Edison.  I chalk all of this up to the shaft which I am just not as used to.  But I also think it is important to highlight that I started in the heel and worked my way out during the session, I wasn't bouncing all around from shot-to-shot.  As for the Edel, well I'm not sure I've ever had a session quite that good, but man was it fun to see.

 

But, now let's look at the dispersion where I had some surprising results.  The Edison 2.0 Wedge grouping was significantly tighter, by a lot!  The general pattern was the same but all of the Edisons shots fit within the dispersion circle of the Edel.  Overall I had 12 yards less lateral dispersion and 13 yards less distance dispersion.  I can only chalk that up to the design of the Edison wedge creating  more forgiveness and producing some stellar results despite my variations in face contact.

 

We're running low on daylight and warm temps but I'm working on getting a fun round in that will focus almost exclusively on this Edison 2.0 45* wedge.  But until then I'll likely continue to repeat some of these tests either at the range when I can or back in the garage utilizing the data I can get from the Rapsodo Unit to compare the two.

See you soon for the next update!

 

That's some great data and information. Interesting to see the dispersion pattern and forgiveness of the club. 

[Shapotomous]

@GolfSpy BOS That is really good data on the face impact and dispersion results for the Edison.  I am seeing the same forgiveness on my toe side misses as distance and direction do not suffer much at all. 

And that is a fantastic face impact ball striking session with the Edel.  It is surprising to me the dispersion is that wide with that consistent face impact.   Are the lie angles of the two wedges the same?  

[GolfSpy BOS]

29 minutes ago, Shapotomous said:

@GolfSpy BOS That is really good data on the face impact and dispersion results for the Edison.  I am seeing the same forgiveness on my toe side misses as distance and direction do not suffer much at all. 

And that is a fantastic face impact ball striking session with the Edel.  It is surprising to me the dispersion is that wide with that consistent face impact.   Are the lie angles of the two wedges the same?  

Lie angles are the same, weight is almost the same with the Edison being about 8g heavier, which makes sense given the 10g heavier shaft and they'd be close in swing weight since my Edel is heavy.  I'm putting the impact variations on my not being totally comfortable with the KBS timing wise.  

As for the Edel, it seemed mostly to be a face angle at impact issue causing some long and left draws when I closed the face a bit too much.  Generally on the day even as I moved up through the bag I had very few shots to the right except when I absolutely tried to hit a cut.  

Watching many of the impact vision clips I did not see anything that would suggest the lie angle for either is off, the club head seemed level at impact.

The sun was getting low so I couldn't tell exactly where a lot of them were landing, but I knew they were all around the flag they had out there, but I was surprised to see just how tight the Edison grouping was! 

[Placasse61]

Had another simulator session last week. Hit 30 of each.

G710 49*, Avg carry 96.9 yds, total distance 101.2, backspin avg. 6835, Apex 75'

Edison 2.0 51*, Avg carry 87 yds, total distance 89.2, backspin avg. 8372, Apex 61'

Edison 2.0 55*, Avg carry 74.1 yds, total distance 75.4, backspin avg. 8956, Apex 57' (seems strange)

Ping glide 2 54*, Avg carry 80.6 yds, total distance 84, backspin avg. 5254, Apex 68' I was all over the place with this club. Not a lot of good crisp hits.

I went to the local sim, which did not give me the ability to separate each club's data only shot by shot. Below look at

I am finding that my shot grouping with the Edisons seems to be much tighter and with more constantly well hit balls. 

[PMookie]

So Saturday I got out to repeat my chipping “test” on a much better green with better lies. All chips were hit “standard” for me, so no toe-down/vertical shaft shots because I knew the results with that method. I hit some 20 yard pitches, and then I put my hat on the green as a target and then hit groupings of 6 balls with each of the four wedges (Edel 54/58, Edison 53/57). I then moved to 10 balls each from the same spot, then moved to random locations after just tossing balls in the air and  playing them where they landed. 
Overall my Edels performed better based on where the balls finished relative to the hat target. The Edels came out a tad higher, and the Edison came out lower, more of a right bias, and ran out more. The toe of the Edisons just has a heavier feel causing it to open at impact. I had to make an aiming adjustment as a result. 
Two chipping test and two “wins” for the Edels. I really do think the weighting of my Edels, the length, where the weights are in the head, and the shaft is making a huge difference. My fitting was pretty exact, where the Edisons weren’t at all so I think that is the number 1 factor in the results I’m seeing everywhere.

Here are the pics.

[PMookie]

I played 18 the other day to do some in-course comparison between the two wedges. I played my normal ball using my Edels, but then on 10 holes I tossed out four balls and hit one each with the wedges hitting the 54/53 from further back than the 58/57, but each set of two were hit from the same distance. I changed the order of which wedges were hit (54 vs 53, 58 vs 57), and kept alternating.

What did I discover? I didn’t see a forgiveness advantage for the Edisons, I didn’t notice lower ball flight, and they had less spin than the Edels. You’ll see in one pic just how much back-up I saw from both. When you realize I play AVX, to see the amount of spin I was getting on some shots it’s pretty insane. 
Anyway, not real scientific l, but I’ll reiterate again, the differences I’m seeing have to be chalked-up to one set is fitted, the other isn’t. The KBS Tour 120 is not the shaft for me. It’s not a good fit, so it’s going to be hard for the Edisons to really compete. 
Here are some pics.

[Josh Ross]

Hey guys. Just chiming in to say you're all doing an awesome job with this test and I hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving!

With the blessing of the mods, I wanted to post for everyone following that may be interested that our Black Friday and Cyber Monday deal is the lowest pricing ever with $25 off your first wedge or $25 off the already discounted set pricing. No code needed, just let me know if I can help!

https://edisonwedges.com/collections/edison-2023-wedges

Edited November 23, 2023 by Josh Ross