The hope of the groove controversey is that it will finally uncover the mystifying and undemocratic way a handful of people in the executive level of the USGA are allowed to make scientifically questionable decisions that can fundamentally affect a agame played by millions.

Apparently you missed all the thoroughly good science the USGA did on this.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=230137&categoryId=95168

And, I'd like to bring in another analogy, one that gets away from the emotional and reactive aspects inherent in this discussion. Let's talk about another sport most of us probably love to watch and play, a sport we've probably played longer than we've played golf.

Baseball.

Do you know how many equipment improvements/changes that professional baseball has allowed in the last 100 years? Essentially, one.

Fielder's gloves now have the fingertips laced together to form a basket, which makes it much easier to catch batted balls. Of course, that happened so long ago that the screams of anguish from the purists have long faded away. If there ever were any.

Baseball, just like golf, is a game of history and statistics. It is that ability to look back through the decades and to connect with those that played before that makes standing on the first tee at Pebble so very special. Or Riviera. Or home plate at Yankee Stadium.

There have already been so many astonishing improvements in golf equipment that the game has permanently changed from what it was. Yes, it's difficult. So is hitting a major league fastball. But, with non-v shaped grooves, perimeter weighted irons and metal woods, and, of course, the ball, we're getting closer and closer to...honestly, I don't know what. But I don't like it. There needs to be some control over the equipment played in this sport, and that control can NOT be given to manufacturers. You might as well put automobile manufacturers in charge of setting highway speed limits.

No, I'm not proposing a return to hickory, persimmon, and blades, much less gutta-percha. It's pretty much a truism that older PGA players like Jack prefer returning to what they grew up with. You can't fight progress.

But you can manage it.

And that's the job of the USGA, and MLB, and the NBA, etc. Yes, the R&A covers more square miles, but the years of the two organizations going in different directions is over. The USGA has every right to make the decisions that affect the play of golf. It's not only their right, it's their responsibility. I do make a clear and distinct line between the USGA and the PGA TOUR. The TOUR is an entertainment industry. The fact that the product is golf is irrelevant to golfers that don't play on the TOUR. The TOUR has every right to make or change any rule they want. Which is why they did NOT follow the Rules until that last embarrassment a few years ago regarding marking the ball on the putting green with a hotel key. That convinced them that if they wanted credibility with those of us who play the non-TOUR game, maybe following the Rules of Golf would be a good idea.

The USGA ended up with egg on their face, and deservedly so, after the Ping mess. That's why they're being more careful, more circumspect, and more involved with the club and ball manufacturers going forward. But, the direction is clear, and one that I fully support and agree with.

Golfers don't quit the game because it's hard. The fact that it's hard is one of the game's greatest attractions. They quit because it's very expensive, and because it takes 6 hours away from your family. Minimum. Perhaps one of the reasons it seems so hard to so many players is because spending $500 on a new driver seems so much more logical than spending $500 on ten lessons.

Clay

Unless I golf another 40 years, I probably won't find much good reason to replace my short irons other than this potential rules change. In my hands, the older muscleback short-irons work better than the modern cavitybacks and beyond. Wedges haven't changed in a significant way for restorers in 50 years. Square grooves are better in wedges, but when regrooving, that can be taken care of. I don't think I am going to buy new short-irons or wedges for any reason other than my potential curiosity.

My best hitting club, a Snake Eyes Quick Strike Q3 U 23* fairway-like hybrid (that I fitted and built myself ) has U-grooves. I know that I could just ignore the rule, but should the USGA (which has impact on other ruling bodies' decisions) be essentually encouraging me to do so.

I do agree with Erik that "10+ handicappers" don't hit the green much from afar for the stopping on it to matter, but I still don't want to be stuck with unconforming clubs. Me personally, my problem is putting. It is amazing how little prowess I have in that part of my game .

All good points but I think the basic point is missed here. This seems to be the USGA asserting itself as the governing body of all of golf - especially the PGA. As such the change in "rules" will really only affect USGA events - US Open etc.

That couldn't be further from the truth. The PGA Tour abides by USGA rules, and the USGA is recommending even club championships and other events with "highly skilled golfers" abide by this rule as of 2009, and that all golfers abide by 2010.

Furthermore, the USGA is not the "governing body of all of golf" - the R&A controls much more territory and the USGA has never done anything to threaten their "hold" on every other country but the U.S. and Mexico.

teeitup. said on March 9, 2007:

The fact is professional golf is designed for two things and two things only: Sell Golf Equipment and sell products (ads for Coke, Nissan and RBC etc) and little else.

Gee, I guess I'm wrong to be entertained, DVR golf so I can skip commercials, and make up my own mind when choosing equipment. Silly me, independent thinker that I am.

I won't argue that golf is subsidized - everything is these days, that's how stuff works - but I think you've taken cynicism to a whole new level.

teeitup. said on March 9, 2007:

People laud the old school notions of shot placement, good fundamentals and so on but few people watch women's golf and even fewer watch amateur golf which are all about that and sponsors (people selling products to pay for the events) are not flocking to those events.

Sorry, but women and amateurs don't have the same skillset as Tiger Woods. And I do watch LPGA and amateur events, but it's foolish to think that they have more shotmakers with better fundamentals. Weak.

teeitup. said on March 9, 2007:

People want to see the pros bomb them off the tee, thrash through the woods, and sink the 50 footers, not watch players plod on with a 250 yard drive and a 3 iron to the green.

Like Tiger Woods did at the '07 Open championship? D'oh!

teeitup. said on March 9, 2007:

But the sport has always had a few elites and a lot of also-rans and it is no different now than it was where nostalgia clouds the memory.

I agree, but I think you've wandered off-point. What exactly does this have to do with grooves?

Personally, I'm fine with this rule. There are three kinds of golfers. Those that rarely play and haven't got a clue what "ground under repair" is, those that play regularly but suck, and those that play regularly and are halfway decent to very good.

The first group couldn't care less about the rules, and their $199 Dick's set of clubs or their 20-year old set of clubs is likely already conforming, and even if it weren't, they wouldn't notice or care anyway.

The second group replaces their clubs every 3-5 years. The first group replaces their clubs every 1-2 years, and they replace their wedges twice as fast or faster.

Thus, those whining about "wha wha, I'll have to buy new clubs" - guess what? You were going to have to anyway, and most of you don't even have non-conforming irons. It's probably just your wedges, which you almost definitely were going to replace.

I think, as I said in the podcast, that "less spin" from the rough (and I'm going on the USGA's scientific word here) will result in more sane pin placements and an increase in shotmaking and decisionmaking. It's no longer a thrill when a pro throws an 8-iron over a bunker to a pin tucked four paces from the edge of a green and sticks it.

And that decision will go back to the tee: pros may decide they don't want to play from the rough as much as they do. Whether they ease up on their driver or opt to hit a 3-wood, so be it.

And the decision will extend even to shots coming from the fairway, as pros who can't spin a high-lofted shot from greenside rough won't want to short-side themselves.

Realistically, this change affects 5-10% of the golf population in terms of "playing" - single digit handicappers are good enough to see the difference between U-grooved wedges and older V-grooved wedges. Most 10+ handicappers rarely hit the green from 100 yards, let alone with a flush shot that will spin properly.

Financially, this change would affect almost nobody. Dave, sorry, but you won't have to dust-bin your 695.MBs - nor will most people. Your irons likely aren't U-grooved. Your wedges, sure - but you'll replace them a few times before 2009 or 2010 rolls around.

Finally, I see this as an interesting test. What other "rollbacks" might the USGA "propose" if this goes over smoothly. Perhaps none. Perhaps CoR or driver head size. We'll have to wait and see. But since this wouldn't even take effect until 2009 or 2010, as a test case, we'd have to wait until at least 2012 or so before the next "proposal" comes down the pipeline.

The fact is professional golf is designed for two things and two things only: Sell Golf Equipment and sell products (ads for Coke, Nissan and RBC etc) and little else. People laud the old school notions of shot placement, good fundamentals and so on but few people watch women's golf and even fewer watch amateur golf which are all about that and sponsors (people selling products to pay for the events) are not flocking to those events.

People want to see the pros bomb them off the tee, thrash through the woods, and sink the 50 footers, not watch players plod on with a 250 yard drive and a 3 iron to the green. They want something unpredictable to happen and old school golf isn't big on unpredictable events. All the players have the same advantage, if it was such that only three players had top access and the rest were playing with broomsticks and feather filled balls I see the complaint. But each player tees it up from the same place, hits the same ball and uses mostly the same clubs - so the difference is minimal. Folks contend the big hitters have advantages etc. But the sport has always had a few elites and a lot of also-rans and it is no different now than it was where nostalgia clouds the memory.

The sinister aspect of me thinks it is a move the mfg.'s and the USGA are doing to stimulate the inevitable decline of sales predicted around that time. With ball and club at it's maximum there is no real reason to buy new clubs anymore. But my guess is this is just petty jealously between the money making machine that is the PGA and the "university" temperament of the USGA.

Prediction: It won't happen at all.

All but two of the many golfers I know are "quitting." I mean that they don't play, but can't drop being a golfer completely until they sell their uncleaned, cheap, rusty, incomplete sets for way more than the $25 they would really sell for. One of the two surviving golfers I know was a golf pro and has the game permanently branded into his brain, so he wouldn't quit.

If the USGA is becoming golf's repo man, I say that more than unconforming grooves are going to be repossesed by this rule if it is made. Every player I've came in contact with personally gets emotional with the thought of using unconforming equipment. This is strange since they play like mulligans are an enactable right, but that is how it is. I play by the rules as best I can by memory and look foward to getting a handicap. If a grooves change is forced on me, I will not be able to afford to play conforming clubs for a good while and my aspirations for a fair calculation of my handicap will be postponed. My ability to compare myself to other golfers and play competitively according to handicap would be "repossesed."

Also, the last connection to the USGA rules that the average hacker follows will quite possibly be "repossesed" when that is lost in their frustration and resultant total ignoring of the rules. Many players on the edge of quitting could decide to actually do it and a significant portion of golf's following would be "repossesed."

I think that the large number of mass quitters of the game is the real threat to golf, not that the tournaments and championships are getting less interesting to watch. If there are less golfers, there will be less fans watching just like the result of the events being less interesting.

I think that the cost of equipment and the overwelming nature of the rules to begginers are things that the ruling bodies would be looking into chiefly if they were "on the mark" regarding improving the game through the rules. My "personal fantasy" rules regarding equipment are as follows:

1. 385cc limit on clubhead size (to reduce materials and construction requirements needed to create a durable, "maxed out" driver clubhead)

2. Shafts requred to weight at least 40g for a 46'' length (the $60 Prolaunch Blue 45 Regular Wood Shaft is 44g)

I understand that the fist rule would be very harsh on lots of people in differant ways, but I can't help thinking it when the average high quality driver costs $200-$1200 (I actually did see somebody buy a driver for $1200).

Please be tolerant of my newness. I do not intend to come barging in here expecting mass reverance like some "newbies" to posting. I certainly don't mean to offend anybody or break some kind of unspoken rule, eigther.