Vokey SM8

[JoeJoeJoeUrBoat]

> @luke1333 said:

> > @JoeJoeJoeUrBoat said:

> > Gaming the SM2s right now that I picked up new a few months ago. Haven’t looked back. They’re not as soft as the 7s but they preform just as well and spin a lot more. It’s more about finding the correct grinds and bounces than anything. There isn’t much they can do from a material & design aspect anymore.

>

> thats because the grooves are illegal LOL

 

Legal until 2024 for us amateurs! ;)

[ThinkingPlus]

I am hoping for lower bounce grinds for the sand wedge lofts. An L grind 54° with 6° of bounce would be fabulous.

[SUPERG]

> @Mudguard said:

> > @SUPERG said:

> > pumped to see them as well, going to be hard t improve the SM7, but I said the same thing for the SM6 and they sure found a way lol. Vokey is really the only Titleist branded club I ever consider.

>

> Call me ignorant but I've had most generations of Vokeys and I don't think I've noticed a difference in any model change. The only performance difference I notice is when I change the bounce.

 

For me, I think the softness is what really improves through the years. Spin has always been about the same, just feel.

 

[timbo08]

> @SUPERG said:

> > @Mudguard said:

> > > @SUPERG said:

> > > pumped to see them as well, going to be hard t improve the SM7, but I said the same thing for the SM6 and they sure found a way lol. Vokey is really the only Titleist branded club I ever consider.

> >

> > Call me ignorant but I've had most generations of Vokeys and I don't think I've noticed a difference in any model change. The only performance difference I notice is when I change the bounce.

>

> For me, I think the softness is what really improves through the years. Spin has always been about the same, just feel.

>

 

I think there are slight visual tweaks as well, leading edge, topline, offset etc... not monumental changes by any stretch of the imagination but more than just styling changes to the back of the club. Outside of that and releasing different bounce options within the grinds year over year I don't personally believe they change drastically within the letter grind itself. An S from SM5 will be similar to an S from SM7 in terms of the grind.

 

This is just my guess as I have ZERO insider knowledge at Titleist but I would bet that the SM8 is the last version we see with Vokey's name on it. During the lifespan of the SM8 you will see more Aaron Dill wedgeworks releases on Vokey.com with AD even getting his own stamps much like Voke. Then for SM9, they will be either Titleist SM9 or Titleist SM9 designed by Aaron Dill or some naming culture like that. Then you will still be able to get "Vokey" designs on the SM9 chasis via WedgeWorks at an even greater premium.

[15th Club]

To this day, my all-time favorite Vokeys were the 200 and 400 series.

[cardoustie]

Sm2 is king of the jungle

[Mudguard]

> @cardoustie said:

> Sm2 is king of the jungle

 

Were they the last of the Spin Milled (red band saw)? They spun too much for me, as in ballooned so my distance control was even worse than normal. And they wrecked balls!! I don't miss old grooves at all to be honest.

[milesnotsmiles]

playing a variety of sm6/sm7's looking forward to see what they have in store for SM8... here comes the speedfoam :D

[Brandons68]

So excited to get a look at the new vokeys. That is all I have played and do not plan on changing that any time soon.

[deep18]

> @milesnotsmiles said:

> playing a variety of sm6/sm7's looking forward to see what they have in store for SM8... here comes the speedfoam :D

 

No no. Spinfoam. B)

[milesnotsmiles]

> @deep18 said:

> > @milesnotsmiles said:

> > playing a variety of sm6/sm7's looking forward to see what they have in store for SM8... here comes the speedfoam :D

>

> No no. Spinfoam. B)

 

TAKE MY MONEY!

[storm3]

> @"15th Club" said:

> To this day, my all-time favorite Vokeys were the 200 and 400 series.

 

Too bad the USGA deemed them as non-conforming...

[storm3]

> @Mudguard said:

> > @cardoustie said:

> > Sm2 is king of the jungle

>

> Were they the last of the Spin Milled (red band saw)? They spun too much for me, as in ballooned so my distance control was even worse than normal. And they wrecked balls!! I don't miss old grooves at all to be honest.

 

SM1 - 2007 - black and white logos

SM2 - 2009 - red logo

SM CC (aka SM3) - 2011 - gold logo

SM4 and after models had the number stamped on it somewhere.

[JoeJoeJoeUrBoat]

I just realized I've only ever owned vokey wedges. That's pretty intense considering the amount of ho'ing I've done over the years.

[conan007]

Any updates??

[agood3putt]

Hoping for an update as well @conan007 but it looks like we are still a little ways out. Definitely ordering a raw set when the time comes.

[creecool]

Just wish they would bring back oil can finish!!!!

[jokerusn]

> @storm319 said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > To this day, my all-time favorite Vokeys were the 200 and 400 series.

>

> Too bad the USGA deemed them as non-conforming...

 

Or pay a premium for a wedgeworks one. The 452 and 460 are my all time favorites. Loved them. Still have the 452 from 2005ish in the overflow pile.

[15th Club]

> @storm319 said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > To this day, my all-time favorite Vokeys were the 200 and 400 series.

>

> Too bad the USGA deemed them as non-conforming...

 

 

Haha. I love this because it is so wrong.

 

The USGA didn't deem them non-conforming. The USGA went out of its way, to make sure that they would not be made "non-conforming" within a normal life span. They are not "non-conforming." And I would normally suggest to you that you look it up and come back to us and tell us what you found but I don't want to wait for that. I want to have as much fun as I can, grinding on you right now, for your wrong-headed suggestion.

 

For the umpteenth time (and for the uninitiated); the groove rule of 2010 did not make old wedges "non-conforming." It prospectively changed the standards for manufacturing grooves on clubs of a certain loft. And the particular ruling bodies of elite golf (first the professional tours, then the state and national amateur championships and NCAA tournament play, etc.) imposed a rule that newly-manufactured wedges would be required per a Condition of Competition.

 

As I write this, there is literally no way that any old pre-2010 wedge is "non-conforming."

 

So now back to you. What else can I say, to run your comment into the ground? Please let me know. Okay thanx bye.

 

[storm3]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @storm319 said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > To this day, my all-time favorite Vokeys were the 200 and 400 series.

> >

> > Too bad the USGA deemed them as non-conforming...

>

>

> Haha. I love this because it is so wrong.

>

> The USGA didn't deem them non-conforming. The USGA went out of its way, to make sure that they would not be made "non-conforming" within a normal life span. They are not "non-conforming." And I would normally suggest to you that you look it up and come back to us and tell us what you found but I don't want to wait for that. I want to have as much fun as I can, grinding on you right now, for your wrong-headed suggestion.

>

> For the umpteenth time (and for the uninitiated); the groove rule of 2010 did not make old wedges "non-conforming." It prospectively changed the standards for manufacturing grooves on clubs of a certain loft. And the particular ruling bodies of elite golf (first the professional tours, then the state and national amateur championships and NCAA tournament play, etc.) imposed a rule that newly-manufactured wedges would be required per a Condition of Competition.

>

> As I write this, there is literally no way that any old pre-2010 wedge is "non-conforming."

>

> So now back to you. What else can I say, to run your comment into the ground? Please let me know. Okay thanx bye.

>

 

Semantics. Should we say “conditionally conforming” instead? Ultimately the USGA made conformance determinations on most clubs submitted for testing under their 2010 ruling change (the ATR designation is bs) and we are in the midst of temporary 14 year bifurcation which is the difference between conforming and non-conforming for certain models. Either way, 1/1/2024 is approaching and unless you have access to a specific Delorean all Vokeys produced prior to 2010 will be non-conforming for all players under the USGAs rules.

 

Back on topic, so how bout them SM8s...

[15th Club]

> @storm319 said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @storm319 said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > To this day, my all-time favorite Vokeys were the 200 and 400 series.

> > >

> > > Too bad the USGA deemed them as non-conforming...

> >

> >

> > Haha. I love this because it is so wrong.

> >

> > The USGA didn't deem them non-conforming. The USGA went out of its way, to make sure that they would not be made "non-conforming" within a normal life span. They are not "non-conforming." And I would normally suggest to you that you look it up and come back to us and tell us what you found but I don't want to wait for that. I want to have as much fun as I can, grinding on you right now, for your wrong-headed suggestion.

> >

> > For the umpteenth time (and for the uninitiated); the groove rule of 2010 did not make old wedges "non-conforming." It prospectively changed the standards for manufacturing grooves on clubs of a certain loft. And the particular ruling bodies of elite golf (first the professional tours, then the state and national amateur championships and NCAA tournament play, etc.) imposed a rule that newly-manufactured wedges would be required per a Condition of Competition.

> >

> > As I write this, there is literally no way that any old pre-2010 wedge is "non-conforming."

> >

> > So now back to you. What else can I say, to run your comment into the ground? Please let me know. Okay thanx bye.

> >

>

> Semantics. Should we say “conditionally conforming” instead? Ultimately the USGA made conformance determinations on most clubs submitted for testing under their 2010 ruling change (the ATR designation is bs) and we are in the midst of temporary 14 year bifurcation which is the difference between conforming and non-conforming for certain models. Either way, 1/1/2024 is approaching and unless you have access to a specific Delorean all Vokeys produced prior to 2010 will be non-conforming for all players under the USGAs rules.

>

> Back on topic, so how bout them SM8s...

 

 

No. We are not going to “agree to disagree.” You’re wrong. The old Vokeys and other old wedges are not non-conforming. There is no rule — none — that makes them non-conforming. You’re calling this “semantics” but there is nothing semantic about it. If you and I played a match tomorrow, there is no rule whatsoever to prevent my playing with my Vokey 452.08 and 258.08. Right now. 100% legal. Legal; and not “non-conforming.”

 

The USGA wisely and carefully said that they may reconsider the old wedge designs in 2024. So until then, there is good reason to wait and see.

 

But in the meantime the one thing I know for sure is that you were wrong.

 

[storm3]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @storm319 said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @storm319 said:

> > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > To this day, my all-time favorite Vokeys were the 200 and 400 series.

> > > >

> > > > Too bad the USGA deemed them as non-conforming...

> > >

> > >

> > > Haha. I love this because it is so wrong.

> > >

> > > The USGA didn't deem them non-conforming. The USGA went out of its way, to make sure that they would not be made "non-conforming" within a normal life span. They are not "non-conforming." And I would normally suggest to you that you look it up and come back to us and tell us what you found but I don't want to wait for that. I want to have as much fun as I can, grinding on you right now, for your wrong-headed suggestion.

> > >

> > > For the umpteenth time (and for the uninitiated); the groove rule of 2010 did not make old wedges "non-conforming." It prospectively changed the standards for manufacturing grooves on clubs of a certain loft. And the particular ruling bodies of elite golf (first the professional tours, then the state and national amateur championships and NCAA tournament play, etc.) imposed a rule that newly-manufactured wedges would be required per a Condition of Competition.

> > >

> > > As I write this, there is literally no way that any old pre-2010 wedge is "non-conforming."

> > >

> > > So now back to you. What else can I say, to run your comment into the ground? Please let me know. Okay thanx bye.

> > >

> >

> > Semantics. Should we say “conditionally conforming” instead? Ultimately the USGA made conformance determinations on most clubs submitted for testing under their 2010 ruling change (the ATR designation is bs) and we are in the midst of temporary 14 year bifurcation which is the difference between conforming and non-conforming for certain models. Either way, 1/1/2024 is approaching and unless you have access to a specific Delorean all Vokeys produced prior to 2010 will be non-conforming for all players under the USGAs rules.

> >

> > Back on topic, so how bout them SM8s...

>

>

> No. We are not going to “agree to disagree.” You’re wrong. The old Vokeys and other old wedges are not non-conforming. There is no rule — none — that makes them non-conforming. You’re calling this “semantics” but there is nothing semantic about it. If you and I played a match tomorrow, there is no rule whatsoever to prevent my playing with my Vokey 452.08 and 258.08. Right now. 100% legal. Legal; and not “non-conforming.”

>

> The USGA wisely and carefully said that they may reconsider the old wedge designs in 2024. So until then, there is good reason to wait and see.

>

> But in the meantime the one thing I know for sure is that you were wrong.

>

 

But Justin Thomas would not be able to put those same clubs into play without penalty in this week’s tournament, so non-conforming for him in that playing situation but conforming for you in your proposed situation. As I said, “conditionally conforming”.

 

Also, in what universe do you see the USGA admitting that this rule change failed to meet their goals and revert back to the prior rule across all levels or make the current temporary bifurcation permanent? If that was a possibility and they were really that confident that this would have the intended impact, they would have had no problem publicly outlining success metrics and an automatic rollback date if those success metrics were not met.

[15th Club]

> @storm319 said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @storm319 said:

> > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > @storm319 said:

> > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > To this day, my all-time favorite Vokeys were the 200 and 400 series.

> > > > >

> > > > > Too bad the USGA deemed them as non-conforming...

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Haha. I love this because it is so wrong.

> > > >

> > > > The USGA didn't deem them non-conforming. The USGA went out of its way, to make sure that they would not be made "non-conforming" within a normal life span. They are not "non-conforming." And I would normally suggest to you that you look it up and come back to us and tell us what you found but I don't want to wait for that. I want to have as much fun as I can, grinding on you right now, for your wrong-headed suggestion.

> > > >

> > > > For the umpteenth time (and for the uninitiated); the groove rule of 2010 did not make old wedges "non-conforming." It prospectively changed the standards for manufacturing grooves on clubs of a certain loft. And the particular ruling bodies of elite golf (first the professional tours, then the state and national amateur championships and NCAA tournament play, etc.) imposed a rule that newly-manufactured wedges would be required per a Condition of Competition.

> > > >

> > > > As I write this, there is literally no way that any old pre-2010 wedge is "non-conforming."

> > > >

> > > > So now back to you. What else can I say, to run your comment into the ground? Please let me know. Okay thanx bye.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Semantics. Should we say “conditionally conforming” instead? Ultimately the USGA made conformance determinations on most clubs submitted for testing under their 2010 ruling change (the ATR designation is bs) and we are in the midst of temporary 14 year bifurcation which is the difference between conforming and non-conforming for certain models. Either way, 1/1/2024 is approaching and unless you have access to a specific Delorean all Vokeys produced prior to 2010 will be non-conforming for all players under the USGAs rules.

> > >

> > > Back on topic, so how bout them SM8s...

> >

> >

> > No. We are not going to “agree to disagree.” You’re wrong. The old Vokeys and other old wedges are not non-conforming. There is no rule — none — that makes them non-conforming. You’re calling this “semantics” but there is nothing semantic about it. If you and I played a match tomorrow, there is no rule whatsoever to prevent my playing with my Vokey 452.08 and 258.08. Right now. 100% legal. Legal; and not “non-conforming.”

> >

> > The USGA wisely and carefully said that they may reconsider the old wedge designs in 2024. So until then, there is good reason to wait and see.

> >

> > But in the meantime the one thing I know for sure is that you were wrong.

> >

>

> But Justin Thomas would not be able to put those same clubs into play without penalty in this week’s tournament, so non-conforming for him in that playing situation but conforming for you in your proposed situation. As I said, “conditionally conforming”.

>

> Also, in what universe do you see the USGA admitting that this rule change failed to meet their goals and revert back to the prior rule across all levels or make the current temporary bifurcation permanent? If that was a possibility and they were really that confident that this would have the intended impact, they would have had no problem publicly outlining success metrics and an automatic rollback date if those success metrics were not met.

 

 

I don't care about Justin Thomas, who is paid millions of dollars to play with clubs that he is fitted with for free.

 

And I don't expect the USGA to "admit" to any failure with the groove specification change, because I don't think it was a failure on any dimension. And I don't think the USGA believes that either.

 

As I indicated to you before; okaythankxbye.

[agood3putt]

Well this escalated quickly...

[luke1333]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @storm319 said:

> > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > @storm319 said:

> > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > @storm319 said:

> > > > > > > @"15th Club" said:

> > > > > > > To this day, my all-time favorite Vokeys were the 200 and 400 series.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Too bad the USGA deemed them as non-conforming...

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Haha. I love this because it is so wrong.

> > > > >

> > > > > The USGA didn't deem them non-conforming. The USGA went out of its way, to make sure that they would not be made "non-conforming" within a normal life span. They are not "non-conforming." And I would normally suggest to you that you look it up and come back to us and tell us what you found but I don't want to wait for that. I want to have as much fun as I can, grinding on you right now, for your wrong-headed suggestion.

> > > > >

> > > > > For the umpteenth time (and for the uninitiated); the groove rule of 2010 did not make old wedges "non-conforming." It prospectively changed the standards for manufacturing grooves on clubs of a certain loft. And the particular ruling bodies of elite golf (first the professional tours, then the state and national amateur championships and NCAA tournament play, etc.) imposed a rule that newly-manufactured wedges would be required per a Condition of Competition.

> > > > >

> > > > > As I write this, there is literally no way that any old pre-2010 wedge is "non-conforming."

> > > > >

> > > > > So now back to you. What else can I say, to run your comment into the ground? Please let me know. Okay thanx bye.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Semantics. Should we say “conditionally conforming” instead? Ultimately the USGA made conformance determinations on most clubs submitted for testing under their 2010 ruling change (the ATR designation is bs) and we are in the midst of temporary 14 year bifurcation which is the difference between conforming and non-conforming for certain models. Either way, 1/1/2024 is approaching and unless you have access to a specific Delorean all Vokeys produced prior to 2010 will be non-conforming for all players under the USGAs rules.

> > > >

> > > > Back on topic, so how bout them SM8s...

> > >

> > >

> > > No. We are not going to “agree to disagree.” You’re wrong. The old Vokeys and other old wedges are not non-conforming. There is no rule — none — that makes them non-conforming. You’re calling this “semantics” but there is nothing semantic about it. If you and I played a match tomorrow, there is no rule whatsoever to prevent my playing with my Vokey 452.08 and 258.08. Right now. 100% legal. Legal; and not “non-conforming.”

> > >

> > > The USGA wisely and carefully said that they may reconsider the old wedge designs in 2024. So until then, there is good reason to wait and see.

> > >

> > > But in the meantime the one thing I know for sure is that you were wrong.

> > >

> >

> > But Justin Thomas would not be able to put those same clubs into play without penalty in this week’s tournament, so non-conforming for him in that playing situation but conforming for you in your proposed situation. As I said, “conditionally conforming”.

> >

> > Also, in what universe do you see the USGA admitting that this rule change failed to meet their goals and revert back to the prior rule across all levels or make the current temporary bifurcation permanent? If that was a possibility and they were really that confident that this would have the intended impact, they would have had no problem publicly outlining success metrics and an automatic rollback date if those success metrics were not met.

>

>

> I don't care about Justin Thomas, who is paid millions of dollars to play with clubs that he is fitted with for free.

>

> And I don't expect the USGA to "admit" to any failure with the groove specification change, because I don't think it was a failure on any dimension. And I don't think the USGA believes that either.

>

> As I indicated to you before; okaythankxbye.

 

If the red saw blade are conforming and spin so much more why aren't any pros using them???

[deep18]

> @AG12 said:

> Well this escalated quickly...

 

Can’t wait for this to get back on topic.

 

 

[BCC1898]

> @"15th Club" said:

> As I indicated to you before; okaythankxbye.

 

Ewww.

 

 

[Albatross85]

> @cardoustie said:

> Sm2 is king of the jungle

 

I still have a brand new 58m and 60L SM2 if youre in the market

[15th Club]

> @deep18 said:

> > @AG12 said:

> > Well this escalated quickly...

>

> Can’t wait for this to get back on topic.

>

>

 

 

I didn’t start the USGA-related fight on this thread. But I’ll be happy to finish it.

[UncleJohn’sBand]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @deep18 said:

> > > @AG12 said:

> > > Well this escalated quickly...

> >

> > Can’t wait for this to get back on topic.

> >

> >

>

>

> I didn’t start the USGA-related fight on this thread. But I’ll be happy to finish it.

 

Trust us, we know.