As you may have gleaned from last week’s Bag Drop, I’m not particularly fond of the USGA’s recently proposed rules change on grooves. Still, as many have suggested, maybe it isn’t that big a deal.
So in an effort to calm down a little, I tried to follow the reasoning of the USGA as they researched, discussed, and promulgated these pithy proposals. I must report it was a prolonged contemplative exercise employing some Zen meditation, navel lint picking and omphaloskepsis, and a fair amount of gin.
Eventually it came to me that the grooves rule comes down to this: really good players are getting an unfair advantage from their equipment the rest of us aren’t. Following that premise, then, what else might we do to equipment to save the game from its very best players? Here are some ideas…
Hook Faces
The most accurate drivers on the PGA Tour are averaging something approaching 80% of fairways hit. That’s seriously too good. They’re obviously getting more out of their driver than I, a mere mortal.
If the gods of golf had intended us to hit that many fairways, they wouldn’t have invented rough. Thus I propose a rule that all drivers manufactured after January 1, 2009 be standardized to include at least a 6° closed face.
Hundreds of thousands of amateurs who slice would rejoice and “highly skilled” players would simply have to adapt. Of course, the PGA Tour would have to ban galleries from the left side of fairways, but that’s a small price to pay for preserving what should be the game’s inherent difficulty. Don’t you think?
Shaft Flex
“Highly skilled” players are commonly employing x-flex shafts. If you’ve never swung one, let’s just say it’s a lot like swinging an iron rebar. They’re obviously getting more distance and accuracy out of such a shaft than I can, so I think we should level the playing field a little.
Since the USGA in its wisdom chose to allow springy clubfaces, I think they should seriously consider mandating springy shafts to go with them.
So, after January 1, 2010, I propose that we put a limit on how stiff a shaft can be. Say… somewhere between regular and stiff. Perfect for me and most other amateurs.
I envision something sort of akin to the early Ping and Callaway Memphis 10 shafts. Might even be a little closer to hickory. Let’s see “highly skilled” golfers try to control shafts that in their hands turn into buggy whips as they careen around a U.S. Open course.
No Spikes
“Highly skilled” players are generating far too much speed and torque with their athletic rotation. Let them try to make that move in flat leather-soled shoes. In fact, think bowling shoes. That ought to slow them down a little. Might even make it a “Condition of Competition” they play barefoot. Sam Snead played with naked feet once in awhile.
After all, were those shepherds hitting rocks with their crooked sticks at the dawn of golf wearing spikes? I don’t think so. If we’re rolling back grooves, let’s roll back to our roots.
This also has the side benefit of eliminating spike marks and scuffs on the green as a splendid workaround for the ridiculous rule forbidding us to tamp them down on our way over to legally fix a ball mark. Vijay and Phil might even kiss and make up.
Putter Loft
If the assault on par by “highly skilled” players is so disturbing to the USGA, I think they should consider focusing their attention on the most important scoring club of all: the putter.
Every weekend you can see some pro making everything from everywhere. That’s just not right. I can’t do that. These “highly skilled” players are getting more out of their putters than I do.
That’s partly because every putter now is dialed in at somewhere between 3° and 5° of loft… whatever is perfect for a pro’s individual stroke. So I say let’s make a rule where the minimum loft on a putter is 10°.
This too could have a dual benefit in that we could grow the grass on greens to carpet height instead of pool table height. Saves on maintenance costs, confounds “highly skilled” players… perfect. Plus we’ll get to see some crazy forward presses like you see in your Sunday foursome. That’s right: my rules are all about bringing professional golf to the masses.
In the End…
Of course as talented and gifted as “highly skilled” players are, they will adapt easily to all my proposed changes. They’ll still drive it a hundred yards further than I do, they’ll still hit nearly 80% of fairways and 75% of greens, and they still won’t fall down while swinging.
Oh… wait a minute. Could it be that “highly skilled” players also will adapt to new grooves? Will some use their supreme skills to fashion new strategies and techniques to escape from light rough? Will club designers figure a way to stay within the rule and still generate sufficient spin? Why, I just bet they might.
And when they do, we can all look back at the proposed new grooves rule and ask, “Why, USGA, why on earth did you bother?” And then we can send them an invoice for our new irons and wedges.
So those are my ideas for new equipment rules. What are yours? Silly or sane, we’d love to hear them.
I’m happy to have finally had the chance to work the word “omphaloskepsis” into an article. 😉
Anyway, for the humor impaired, this is clearly a satirical piece, but I remain convinced that Tiger Woods could beat most scratch golfers if handed only a left-handed women’s set of clubs.
Very well said Jack. These are, after all, professionals were talking about. We should expect them to benefit from equipment each and every aspect of equipment unlike your average hack.
The same principle is true for me and my cutaway guitar. It’s there so I can get to the upper frets when I’m “shredding” but I rarely need it.
Hillarious. I especially like the idea of the 6 degree closed face driver. LOL.
It all comes down to the fact that they can only act so much like big brother.
If I got this article correct, you meant that “the guys/the girls” who are top of the line gets a lot of new rules that put weird things in for example TOO MANY fairwayhits and so on? Not that I have anything against that in common, but you may be right.
My cousin is a pro at a smaller golfclub in the nearby of my homevillage. Not sayin’ he is one of a kind, but maybe I should ask him, what he has to say about this crazieness? He ought to know a little bit more than I do.
p.s Sorry if I got things a bit wrong here and there. English isn’t my motherlanguage.
I thought you drank Scotch.
Norm: Thank you for reading. This article was suposed to be something of a joke. I just don’t write jokes very well. My point was: why is a rule necessary if it only affects the top 0.5% of players but causes the rest of the 99.5% of players to change clubs if they want to be playing the same game. I hope that makes sense. Because the USGA and R&A apparently aren’t making any. Sense, that is.
Marty: I’ve been through a dark time. Gin has powers. But know I’ve been back to the Scotch of late. It’s that bad. I’ll catch up with you soon and tell you the sad story.
I say they change the rules to only allow a pro 8 clubs in his or her bag. That would really spice things up.
I agree that the best golfers would find a way around the potential change of the rules regarding groves. I think that irresponsible rules regarding golf equipment don’t “preserve the game as we know it,” they change the course of golf’s trends and techniques. These could change golf more than the original “problem” would have. In the long run, these rules don’t stop performance increases due to equipment, they just shift the golf companies’ emphasis to different features. As long as golf equipment stays relatively unstandardized (which I think is a great part of the game), there will be improvements made to it to get an advantage.
One of the rules as of late makes perfect sense to me, though. The rule regarding clubhead size stoped a tendency that I think was getting out of hand. New rules can be useful for preventing golf trends from getting freakish.
The springlike effect rule resulted in heavier, thicker center faces aimed at increasing the size of the .830 COR zone by decreasing the power transfer in the center to allow more COR around a greater perimeter. Increasing the COR zone the old fashioned way saves weight and really only gains about four yards of distance to the average swingspeed golfer anyway. The MOI rule caused two big companies, Nike and Callaway, to lead the market in a “freakish” turn to previously unpopular square heads with the intent on reaching the new limit.
I suspect that these “irresponsible rules” are actually created to help save money on course changes for the best golfers in their tournaments. Making rules to force the best to play more normally is more ecconomical than changing the courses significantly each time a tournament comes through.
To prevent the best golfers from playing too abnormally in the future while not straining the “faltering” golf industry, I can only recommend this:
1. Limit club length to 46” instead of 48”.
2. Allow a maximum of 100g of counterweighting.
These two aspects of distance enhancement have not been played to their fullest. Extremely long or heavy clubs would be hard to use, but controlling a grapefruit on the end of a stick took adjustment for existing players when modernly oversize drivers first came out. These restrictions would not single anyone out, make the game harder for everyday people, make popular existing equipment unconforming, increase the cost to play, start an unusual looking equipment trend, etc as far as I can tell.
In the end, I say that special courses designed just for the best would solve things in the simplest way. This is not the kind of thing that the ruling bodies do, though. Perhaps two short 18-hole courses that are arranged in a way that can have them very easily converted into one full course of double length for the tournaments. 💡
Jack, I enjoyed it!
I do think there’s a simple solution to the “highly-skilled/top 0.5%” issue.
The USGA and the PGA TOUR, should, jointly, agree that the Rules of Golf only apply to amateurs. The TOUR can go ahead and do anything it wants.
The TOUR can play with white-painted dimpled SuperBalls for all it would matter to us. Struck with 50″ drivers off 8″ tall tees.
Then, you can take Ben Hogan’s fervent prayer that putting should count less than ball-striking, and make the hole 12″ in diameter. There’s too much putting on TV anyway. Boring.
Finally, the professional game would naturally evolve to its ultimate endpoint…the replacement of the old-fashioned game with professional Golden Tee majors.
On-line, of course.
The standard length tee is gone no one plays 2 1/8″ tees anymore… I think the “highly skilled” players should try hickory shafts and a featherie see if Tiger could shoot 10 or 11 under at Torrey Pines this year…
It’s the balls! 😯
Did they pitch special baseballs to Mantle? Did Jordan shoot only a special MJ basketball?
The tour(s) needs a Tour Ball or at least Tour Specifications for balls. Then a well hit drive will go 290 not 350 and a 7-iron will top out at 160 not 190. Ever hit an ‘old’ Titleist Professional with today’s driver? It is 20% shorter.
The Tour is an exhibition of professional golfing talent. Let’s see some talent returned to the game and not just long drives produced from suped up equipment and weight lifting.