In 1984 a green mowing height of 7/64s or 1/8th would have been unheard of on a green that received the number of rounds of a municipal course these days. The grass would have wilted and died from lack of water or disease partway through the season.

Now greens at 1/8th can sustain 7 minute tee time intervals. This is the characteristic of modern courses that nobody has considered. This is the chicken and the egg argument. Did golfers switch to square grooves because the greens got tougher or did the greens get tougher because the golfers switched to square grooves? I would argue the latter. Golf course supers pushed the limits of what they could do with grass and as a result we were forced to adapt.

I will agree with everybody that the COF rule has lead to a necessity to lengthen golf courses but this conversation isn't about whether change will happen. Change is inevitable and it's how we handle change that defines our legacy. Additionally people are missing the boat on the driving accuracy bit. In order to cope with modern technology courses have been lengthened. You know how they lengthen a course right? They push some dirt into a mound and make a tee box that's 50 yards further back then the last tee box. They don't lengthen the fairway to match the tee adjustment. That's too expensive. So what do you have now. You have people hitting at the same narrow winding fairways but they're doing it from 50 yards back at angles that narrow the course in a way that the architect never originally intended. So yes people used to hit the ball in the fairway more often and that used to be more closely tied to success on tour and at the local course but now when you make contact with the ball at a club face angle that's 1degree off over 300 yards you're guaranteed to miss the fairway.

If anything Golf courses and the fact that golf now has legitimate athletes playing the game at the highest level have caused golf to become even more difficult and precise not less.

I for 1 still cannot rip back a wedge from 120 and 3 inches of rough and I probalby never will.

Very disappointing.

Slow play and people that won't fix their ball marks are the two biggest annoyances on the course.

Erik, you're contradicting yourself. The courses are already set up more difficult on the PGA Tour every week... especially pin positions... just not quite as ridiculous as the U.S. Open. Growing rough for those event seems a simpler solution than a wholesale change of equipment.

Growing rough that long takes weeks and months. Should a course really sacrifice playability for 99.5% of the golf population just so it can host some pros once a year?

Jack Waddell said on February 28, 2007:

And, no, I don't think it would be any less entertaining to watch the best players in the world challenged more... which, when you think about it, seems to be the intent of this rules change anyway.

I think the intent of the rules change is to make three- or four-inch rough a penalty once again, to make "shortsiding" oneself a penalty once again, and that, by the way, will affect far more than the 0.5% of professional golfers. I'll feel the pain, too, and I'm still for it.

Jack Waddell said on February 28, 2007:

So do you make it harder for the world's best by changing equipment or changing the course?

Clearly the USGA has little input on the setup of PGA Tour courses, so they are taking care of the things they're entitled to take care of - the rules.

Jack Waddell said on February 28, 2007:

But the fact of the matter is that the game is too hard and thus takes too long to play for the average golfer.

I disagree that difficulty equates to pace of play. I've seen - and was myself when I first started out - some really fast players shoot 100. I've seen players shoot 68 and take five hours to do so.

Part of the allure of golf is the difficulty. It's what makes that one great shot everyone is bound to hit in a round so amazing, so powerful that it brings you back time and time again.

Jack Waddell said on February 28, 2007:

I'm with Frank Thomas. I don't think what the top 0.5% of golfers are capable of doing with square grooves matters to the game. And I don't think it matters to the other 99.5% of golfers either.

You're clinging to the 0.5% thing because it kinda helps your argument, but saying so suggests that a 3-handicapper like myself sees no advantage from the grooves. I do. Suddenly your 0.5% expands tenfold to 5%.

Jack Waddell said on February 28, 2007:

Of greater import is the likelhood that this proposed rule could open a can of worms in the form of lawsuits that the USGA spends tons of money on to thwart. Would you rather see the USGA spend money on lawyers or on growing the game?

That's a silly argument, Jack, and in discussing it with you seems to be the crux of your disagreement with the USGA. There's been no rules change. They've simply proposed it ("USGA Announces Two New Equipment Proposals…"), and will thus gauge feedback from manufacturers. If they sense a problem that will likely cost them boatloads of cash in courts, and proceed anyway, I'll be first in line to bash them as stupid. But I believe they put it out for discussion simply to gauge reaction. It can still be withdrawn. It's not been codified as an actual rule, yet. If there's little or no push-back from the manufacturers, and no large lawsuits, your disappointment will have been misplaced.

And if you're thinking of PGA Tour courses, we have long rough: at the U.S. open, once per year. I hardly think golf would make for popular television if every tournament turned into the U.S. Open.

One only has to look at the width of the fairways, the height of the rough, and the location of the pins on the greens (three paces from the edge these days?) to know that these aren't the same courses, even when they are in name.

Erik, you're contradicting yourself. The courses are already set up more difficult on the PGA Tour every week... especially pin positions... just not quite as ridiculous as the U.S. Open. Growing rough for those event seems a simpler solution than a wholesale change of equipment. And, obviously in doing so, they don't have to make the fairways as narrow as at the Open.

Just as is true today, those "tournament" conditions need not be part of every course's normal setup.

And, no, I don't think it would be any less entertaining to watch the best players in the world challenged more... which, when you think about it, seems to be the intent of this rules change anyway.

So do you make it harder for the world's best by changing equipment or changing the course?

Erik J. Barzeski said on February 28, 2007:

Your argument is all over the place. First you talk about how this change is only for the PGA Tour, and now you talk as if it's making the game harder for average golfers.

And frankly, I don't even agree that the game needs to be made easier. It took me nearly three years to get down to shooting consistently in the 70s. If I had done that my fifth time out, I doubt very much I'd still be playing golf these days. The fact that I'm a 3 handicap and not scratch gets me to the course every day I'm able to go.

That the game doesn't need to be made easier for you is certainly a testimony to your skill, perserverance, and apparent need to be challenged.

But the fact of the matter is that the game is too hard and thus takes too long to play for the average golfer. Keeping grooves as they are doesn't make it easier, it keeps it where it is. And that's just one of many reasons why I think this proposed rule change is unnecessary and ill-considered.

I'm with Frank Thomas. I don't think what the top 0.5% of golfers are capable of doing with square grooves matters to the game. And I don't think it matters to the other 99.5% of golfers either.

Of greater import is the likelhood that this proposed rule could open a can of worms in the form of lawsuits that the USGA spends tons of money on to thwart. Would you rather see the USGA spend money on lawyers or on growing the game?