USGA Announces Rules Changes on golf club grooves

[scooterguitar]

While I have to lean against such ruling, it obviously won't affect me at all.
I think most of us enjoy buying and trying new gear as much as possible, so odds are the large majority of this group would be buying new wedges long before it takes hold.

[odstore]

I'm curious to see how much of a difference the duller grooves will make, but on the plus side maybe a pro v will be able to last more than 3 holes now.

[beung]

I don't like the rule all that much, for a couple of reasons.

One, I don't know, maybe it's just me but I've seen the rough on TV, from what I can tell when the rough is like 3" high, does it matter how deep or sharp the grooves are? Is the bomb and gouge really driving down the scores on tour? Is this going to really lower the scores on tour, for some reason I don't think this will effect the tour players very much but it will effect the general golfing public. What makes it harder for professionals is bound to make it much harder for amateurs.

Isn't reducing the opportunity for great recovery shots hurting some of the appeal of playing or especially watching golf? For me, watching some guy hit 12 fairways and hit 8i into each green and 2 putting for par is kind of boring. It's one thing when they have to do it four times a year during the majors but each week seeing the winning score being barely in the red isn't all the appealing.

Part of the appeal of watching a spectator sport, is to witness something out of the norm - how many NASCAR fans are at the edge of their seats hoping for a crash? When you remove the risk/reward element it loses some of it's appeal. I want to see Phil hit it in the long stuff and see him gouge it out to 4 feet...or at least see him attempt it. Is he going to succeed everytime, no but those kind of shot define a player. You would rather see him punch in out sideways onto the fairway in the hopes that he can stick a wedge in close for a one putt par? That's Furyk, not Phil

Then again, making that recovery shot that much harder could add to the appeal but if the intent of the rule change is to make the player hit safer drives so they don't just bomb it and go into the rough and gouge it out, then for me seeing the shots go from the fairway to the middle of the green each hole is great when you are playing but not as much when you are watching a pro do it.

[FlopShotArtist]

I don't like the rule all that much, for a couple of reasons.

Nice post, I completely agree with everything you said. Like when Tiger hit it out of the deep rough on 18 at the US Open on Sunday, that was fun to watch. It's kind of boring to watch someone hit every fairway, hit the middle of the green, and two-putt.

[jrode]

All I know is I don't care, I'll still be buying new clubs soon.

I suck too much to worry about what's legal and what's not in competitive, professional play.

[iacas]

One, I don't know, maybe it's just me but I've seen the rough on TV, from what I can tell when the rough is like 3" high, does it matter how deep or sharp the grooves are?

Perhaps you should read the exhaustive study the USGA released last year on this very topic?

Is the bomb and gouge really driving down the scores on tour?

The USGA has stated that the correlation between driving accuracy and scoring has gone down to almost zero lately, so yes, it does. Statistical fact, as they say. Again, you should probably read the study.

Is this going to really lower the scores on tour, for some reason I don't think this will effect the tour players very much but it will effect the general golfing public. What makes it harder for professionals is bound to make it much harder for amateurs.

Did you read my earlier posts?

Most amateurs don't play a urethane covered ball. Most don't hit the ball well enough (solidly) or with enough swing speed to have this affect things much. I also believe this is covered in the USGA's fairly exhaustive report from about a year ago, and I encourage you to look that up. It will affect the top 10% of golfers only (roughly), and will affect the top 1% a lot more than someone in the tenth percentile.

Isn't reducing the opportunity for great recovery shots hurting some of the appeal of playing or especially watching golf?

When's the last time you saw someone hit a great recovery shot that they couldn't have pulled off with slightly less effective grooves?

The thicker rough tournaments have had to grow have done what you're suggesting the 2010 grooves will do: remove the recovery shot. Let me say that again: thick rough has done more to remove the recovery shot from a pro's bag of tricks than the new grooves will. They've had to grow the rough so tall to counter-act the grooves. With this rule, we can return to lower rough and either force guys to go for the center of the green OR try a heroic recovery shot that must be judged and pulled off PERFECTLY in order to nestle close to the hole.

For me, watching some guy hit 12 fairways and hit 8i into each green and 2 putting for par is kind of boring. It's one thing when they have to do it four times a year during the majors but each week seeing the winning score being barely in the red isn't all the appealing.

Kind of a non-sequitur here, isn't it? I don't debate made up stats. You know as well as I do this rule won't change that - it's simply going to force a little more return to sanity in the rough and a little more control in the driving game, or else (some) golfers will pay a bit of a penalty.

When you remove the risk/reward element it loses some of it's appeal.

Good - this will allow a return of more recovery shots, it will not REMOVE recovery shots.

Then again, making that recovery shot that much harder could add to the appeal but if the intent of the rule change is to make the player hit safer drives so they don't just bomb it and go into the rough and gouge it out, then for me seeing the shots go from the fairway to the middle of the green each hole is great when you are playing but not as much when you are watching a pro do it.

The intent of the rule is to make driving accuracy a bit more of a factor, and I dare say Tiger Woods at Hoylake in 2006 was anything but dull.

[beung]

I must confess that my post has zero statistical backing, it was more of a personal opinion. I just wanted to draw attention to the possibility that the rule will declaw some of the personalities on the tour. I don’t think for a second that the large, very large majority of the golfers out there would benefit from deeper or sharper grooves in their wedges, no matter how deep or sharp they were.

What I do know is that they don’t have “top 10” shows about the safest shots, the most consecutive 2 putt pars or the most fairways hit streaks. They may mention it during a broadcast to emphasize how important it is to hit fairways or to simply hit greens in regulation but when you watch the highlights of the whole round you generally see them attempting tough shots, shots that usually aren’t from the fairway. They do have shows that glorify the triumphs and failures, which usually are a result of having to perform a shot(s) that seems impossible to pull off, yet when they do, you cheer at their skill and you can actually relate to them when they fail because you have probably been in that situation.

I guess it depends on who you ask but what is less dull, Tiger’s win at Hoylake or Phil collapse at Winged Foot? I can truly appreciate Tiger’s strategic reasoning for not hitting driver very much but I don’t want to see him hit long iron off the tee each and every week. As for Phil, his whole weeks work (and probably more because of prep and practicing) was ruined because of one hole and more specifically a sequence of Van De Velde-esque shots. That makes me want to watch golf, just like watching Tiger sink a 15 footer at the US Open this year to force a playoff, even without the knee drama.

[iacas]

What I do know is that they don’t have “top 10” shows about the safest shots, the most consecutive 2 putt pars or the most fairways hit streaks.

And I think you're missing the point: the recovery shot has become less commonplace because the rough has been grown taller to combat the grooves. With the less aggressive grooves, shorter rough (2"?) will still have a big impact, and we may see more players try the heroic recovery shot, but we may also see less actually pulled off because the line between "good" and "bad" just got thinner.

Long rough = bad for recovery shots, and long rough is a reaction to the current wedge grooves.

[YogiTKE]

Well my new cleveland wedge that I just bought doesn't conform, guess I will just have to put off playing on the tour

"The rules apply to clubs manufactured after Jan. 1, 2010"

If you just bought your wedge, I don't believe it was manufactured after 1-1-2010.

[YogiTKE]

I think a lot of the negative comments are coming from people who have not read the article. There is not going to be any big changes for the typical amateur and might not ever be. Overall, I think this is a great move by the USGA. It's a rule that will not negatively affect the average golfer and will help even some competition within the top level pros. Good job USGA.

[allin]

I can just see the golf club salesman saying get yours now while they are still legal, and some poor slob who can't spin the ball anyway will buy a wedge that doesn't suit him at all.

[TexasSR]

I think it is a good step in the right direction. Right now, a shorter hitter who depends on accuracy can no longer compete at the Pro level. Guys who won 20 or more career victories while being shorter, accurate hitters wouldn't stand a chance to have careers like that today. What I don't like are the way the Rule phases in for various levels, leading to a "bifurcation" of the Rules. One of the nice things about Golf is that all play under the exact same Rules. Now, you can choose to do so but at the lower levels it might put one at a competitive disadvantage.

[uttexas]

Is there a list of nonconforming (in relation to the USGA proposed groove ruling) (groove spacing/depth/volume) etc? Or, almost all short irons and wedges produced over the past 10 years nonconforming to the proposed groove spacing/depth/volume rule?

Or is it just the high end short irons and wedges?

[uttexas]

....and here's the bit I don't fully understand. Manufacturers are to stop producing the nonconforming grooved clubs in 2010. But, high level amateurs (which includes NCAA, Walker cup, US and British Amateurs, etc) can still play using the clubs until 2014. Then the rest of golfers (the vast majority) don't get effected until 2024.

Why punish manufacturers and so early? The rule only affects pros in 2010 (around 0.1% of all golfers)

There are plenty of nonconforming drivers out there still being produced. Why the odd time frame(s)? The USGA will create some unfair competition in the marketplace.

[iacas]

Is there a list of nonconforming (in relation to the USGA proposed groove ruling) (groove spacing/depth/volume) etc? Or, almost all short irons and wedges produced over the past 10 years nonconforming to the proposed groove spacing/depth/volume rule?

I imagine a list will be available at the end of the year or maybe as late as early 2010.

IIRC, it's all clubs with 25° loft or more.