GolfWell Podcast · Cordie Walker - Formerly Golf Science Lab

Decoding Shot Shaping & Iron Size: Dr Sasho MacKenzie breaks down new research

·52 min·3 clips

Drawing the ball increases an out-of-plane moment of force that helps the face close.

1. GolfWell Podcast focuses on Dr. Sasho McKenzie’s review of shot shaping, iron design, and face-to-path variability from the World Scientific Congress of Golf. 2. Dr. Sasho McKenzie is the guest, a biomechanist and co-founder of STAC, and the host introduces him as a repeat guest with research experience. 3. The episode asks what Ping’s seven-iron testing and McKenzie’s workshop data say about club design and repeatable ball striking. 4. McKenzie describes a Ping study with 15 participants, all under a 10 handicap, hitting stock shots, then seven draws and seven fades. 5. The study compared two iron models, the Blueprint and the G710, while keeping setup variables fixed with tape on the ground. 6. He says the Blueprint represents a smaller, tour-style head and the G710 represents a larger game-improvement head. 7. The design question was whether blade length changes shot shaping, club kinetics, or both. 8. McKenzie reports that the G710 was fade-biased and the Blueprint was draw-biased. 9. He says the average face-to-path gap between draws and fades was about 6.5 degrees for both irons. 10. He also says the amount of curve differed by about eight yards between fades and draws for both models. 11. McKenzie uses those numbers to argue that the two irons were equally workable, even if they pushed ball flight in different directions. 12. He says the G710 still fit high-handicap players better because forgiveness matters even when the club is fade-biased. 13. He notes that Ping is already using offset and more upright lie angles to reduce that fade bias. 14. McKenzie then turns to his out-of-plane moment of force idea and says draw attempts create a force relationship that helps the face close. 15. He says the G710 required more torque to close the face, yet still stayed more open than the Blueprint. 16. He adds that among the 15 players, 12 found the Blueprint easier to draw and 3 found the G710 easier. 17. The workshop portion shifts to face-to-path variability as a possible separator for strong players and suggests path is often stable while the face varies more. 18. McKenzie says rate of closure has not shown a strong correlation with face-to-path variability or with performance in the data he has seen. 19. He says golfers who want this discussion would like a technical, research-heavy interview about club delivery and ball flight. 20. He says listeners who want a light, nontechnical recap or a short casual chat may skip it.

As heard by us

A focused look at why shot shape comes down to repeatable face-to-path control.

Dr. Sasho McKenzie treats shot shape as a problem of repeatable mechanics: how a golfer keeps the face-to-path window consistent enough to produce the ball flight they want.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

If face-to-path variability feels mysterious, this is the one to press play on.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from GolfWell Podcast