Does ever[y] golfer that plays golf have the space in their budget to go out and buy all brand new irons and wedges just because the USGA wants to impose the groove rules?

That's irrelevant. The vast majority of golfers will be grandfathered in, and for those who play competitively and at a high level, I would guess that most (never say "every") would see new irons as a small portion of their yearly golf budget.

Does ever golfer that plays golf have the space in their budget to go out and buy all brand new irons and wedges just because the USGA wants to impose the groove rules? Have you looked at your local golf store lately. I have, and I didn't see even one set of irons with V-grooves... they are all square grooves now.

Rough is rather expensive to grow, takes a long time, and the course must still be somewhat playable outside of the one week a PGA Tour event comes to town.

Thr rough seems to grow quite cheaply on my local course. Mind you, it's not manicured and lovingly looked after like on tour. Not working at a course I wouldn't know, but I'm sure members would be understanding and proud to have their course a challenge to Pros by letting the rough go a little bit more just a couple of times a year before an event. They probably expect to spend a lot in getting the course ready, whether they cut the rough or not.

Erik J. Barzeski said on July 6, 2007:

The PGA Tour and the USGA are separate entities altogether. Get that right first.

Which is why I was asking if the tour didn't want to make courses slightly tougher for some reason, since the USGA do with their US Open.

Erik J. Barzeski said on July 6, 2007:

Second, did you see how much Angel Cabrera spun the ball from the "first cut" (i.e. "light rough") on the 15th hole at the U.S. Open?

Yes, first cut..wasn't that only 1.5"? I do like the graded rough they had, 1.5", 2.5", 5"? So punished the more inaccurate they are. I like to see a challenge rather than a slog, so think having the first cut not too harsh is good. The fact so many Pros that week seemed to not play the course and went into the deeper rough a lot was their own fault. I'm not sure everyone wants all PGA tour events to be as tough as the US Open, but I do feel making courses slightly tougher in light of the calibre of the modern player and equipment is an alternative worth considering. Butch commentated he liked the tougher fairway rough, although that it was a bit much having such fast greens and tough greenside rough as well.

Terry Koehler of EIDOLON made an interesting point that it was puzzling why after the practice rounds that so many Pros didn't alter their play (or were unable to pull off the shots) to keep it on the fairway after surely figuring out that deep rough left them no kind of quality shot. Also mentions:

http://www.thewedgeguy.com/another-lesson-from-the-us-open/

In the Open, only 15 players hit better than 60% of the fairways. Fifteen ! And only 39 hit half the fairways ! That’s deplorable. And in case you think that the U.S. Open fairways were that much tougher, to date this year on the entire PGA Tour, only 30 players are hitting it in the fairway better than one out of three holes !

Both could be tried, and then we could get feedback from tour players and statisticians and see which, if any, of the changes had the desired effect.

I realize that golf, like baseball, is steeped in tradition, and to do this sort of tinkering seems almost impossible.

But it would be a good idea.

One thing complicating all of this is the fidelity of the USGA's statistical analysis--I left this out of the article, but it's really quite important. Remember, they looked at correlation coefficients between dollars earned and fairways hit rankings. Correlations don't prove anything about _cause_. Also, the stat of fairways hit is not exactly a highly quantitative thing. Missing a fairway by a foot means the same thing as missing it by 40 yards. The statistical analysis of fairways hit through the years can't control for differences in fairway widths over the years (they've been getting narrower, I believe) or the depth of rough (also tougher in recent years). Finally, the correlation they used was with _dollar earnings_ rank, which can be effected by the distribution of prize money in tournaments, how much players choose to play, etc. The change in correlation could simply reflect that younger players--who usually happen to be the longer hitters--are hungrier and in need of money, and they simply play more events today than they did in the past. Or, the opposite: money is so good and purses so high, the older, more accurate players are able to play less often and still earn enough to pay their bills.

In short, there are many things having nothing to do with spin that could underlie the change in the correlation between driving accuracy and dollars earned on tour.

I've read the groove study, including a hard copy from the USGA containing the technical appendices, etc. It's extremely good, and I admit that my comments are of the "contrarian" or "Devil's advocate" type; certainly this rule change should cause some noticable changes in golf shots we see on tour. But whether it's going to re-engineer scoring on tour or bring back an emphasis on control is much harder to predict.

I'm no expert in engineering and I don't have the robots the USGA has but it seems to me the drivers are hotter and the ball just flies father. Maybe the ProV1 isnt any longer than a Pinnacle in the 90's I dont know, but it sure spins alot more with a 8 iron than a Pinnacle.

The ball goes a legal distance. Always has. This isn't a ball debate, and as far as I'm concerned, there isn't one. Today's Pro V1x is a marriage of a Pinnacle (distance) with a balata (though not quite) for the short game.

Today's drivers have larger faces and longer and lighter shafts. The average swing speed for a driver has increased 13 MPH since 1987. Given that 1 MPH swing speed is equal to about 2.5 yards, there's most of your distance increase right there.

Matt M said on June 29, 2007:

… and driver are what are changing the game. The USGA are attacking the grooves because … the average probably won't notice that much difference

Exactly. Leave the big-headed, light, long drivers in the hands of everyone, and change something that will only affect the pros and better players. Makes sense to me. More sense than, say, limiting clubhead volume to 300cc. Pros might lose a little, but average golfers would lose out substantially if we all played with "tiny" clubheads.

Matt M said on June 29, 2007:

All I know is there are less rounds played now than before and USGA wants to make the game harder,

I don't believe either of those are true, and we can't just make stuff up here at TST when we want to suit our arguments.

Zach said on June 29, 2007:

i agree that recreational golfers are who the USGA should be watching out for. Golf is difficult enough for us in the first place and even with all the new technology, average handicaps have not decreased. Will reverting to older technology make better players because they are forced to be more accurate? Hardly.

Again, changing the grooves will have essentially ZERO effect on the average golfer. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

Zach said on June 29, 2007:

It's got more chance of driving people away from the game because they are even farther away from playing like their favorite pro.

If the USGA study results are accurate (and, as a scientist, I see no reason to doubt them), then the grooves change will make the pros play a bit more like you. You can't suck the ball back from the fairway let alone the rough. The pros can. After the grooves change, if it goes through, they won't from the rough either.

Zach said on June 29, 2007:

The new bombers are hardly dominating the Tour.

No, but the mentality is.

Do the USGA really want to make it a penalty for being off-line? I'm not sure V grooves do that, just change the game slightly. Right now with some course rough, with or without U grooves players will still take on the shot and the only difference with V grooves will be less spin. They'll still be around the green there abouts, just maybe not as close...

That's the point - the inability to put spin on the ball removes the opportunity to put it close for birdie. Pros will be getting up and down for par - effectively a 1/4 shot penalty or so for missing the fairway.

Mike said on July 6, 2007:

If the USGA really wanted to make the rough a penalty hazard for being off line, then makes sense to make the rough tougher so that players are forced to chip out or lay up short of the green. Then they might think twice about bombing it without due accuracy and risk going into rough that could cost them a stroke or more. There shouldn't be anything special about rough that means it should be made an easy hazard for Pros to get out of. Why else have fairways or rough at all?

Rough is rather expensive to grow, takes a long time, and the course must still be somewhat playable outside of the one week a PGA Tour event comes to town.

Mike said on July 6, 2007:

Does anyone think U-grooves made the US or British Open too easily with the way they were setup that week?

Nobody's claiming it makes golf easy. The claim is that the balance of power versus accuracy has shifted a bit too far, and this may be a sane way of bringing it back.

Mike said on July 6, 2007:

A handful of events can manage it, so is the problem down to the way the rest of the tour courses are setup, too forgiving of off-line shots? Should the game be looking towards the grooves/ball that affect the whole game and industry, or at toughening those courses on tour so only affects the Pros? Where it can offer a challenge to the Pros, while still allowing the excitment of birdies and close approach shots if good course mangement is employed by Pros.

And what about good amateurs, playing in events. This isn't a change that will affect just PGA Tour players - it'll affect every pro and virtually every single-digit handicapper.

Mike said on July 6, 2007:

The USGA and R&A both proved that course setup can tame Pros and their U-grooves with their respective Opens. So why wasn't that tried first at least? Or isn't that something the tour want to do?

The PGA Tour and the USGA are separate entities altogether. Get that right first.

Second, did you see how much Angel Cabrera spun the ball from the "first cut" (i.e. "light rough") on the 15th hole at the U.S. Open?