Question about USGA groove article

[CusePhil]

What exactly are they banning? Are the 20 year old Ping Eye 2 irons my dad has been playing all the sudden going to be banned? Or just the wedges? Or not at all? Excuse my ignorance...

[Sherpat]

Here's a good, concise rundown of what's happening and why: http://www.pga.com/news/tours/usga/g...022707.cfm?rss

In a nutshell, the Powers That Be think that square grooves give so much more spin that rough is not penal any more. Old V-grooves couldn't impart spin to the ball from the rough, so players tried harder to keep their tee shots in the fairway. Now that U-grooves CAN spin the ball like a top out of the rough, allowing for pinpoint shots to the flag that check up, better players don't care if they're in the fairway or not off the tee. The USGA and R&A; see this as a corruption of tradition.

Note that they are not banning U-grooves per se. They are saying that if a club does have U-grooves, they can't produce more spin than V-grooves. Manufacturers will have to adjust depths, angles, etc. of their grooves accordingly, therefor.

No word what this will do to your dad's Pings (which started the whole argument). But there is a possibility he may not have to worry. The USGA is still mulling it over and taking public comment on the matter until August 1st. Expect a definitive ruling sometimes after that.

Tom

[iacas]

No word what this will do to your dad's Pings (which started the whole argument). But there is a possibility he may not have to worry. The USGA is still mulling it over and taking public comment on the matter until August 1st. Expect a definitive ruling sometimes after that.

I wouldn't say the Pings started the argument. This is a similar but altogether different argument, I believe. The "bomb and gouge" era has seen to that. We still had persimmon drivers back when the whole Ping thing was going on, after all.

Some articles on our site: http://thesandtrap.com/extras/rules/...tability_rules http://thesandtrap.com/columns/bag_d...square_grooves http://thesandtrap.com/extras/swing_...golfs_repo_man http://thesandtrap.com/columns/thras...ns_of_the_game

[Sherpat]

My mistake. I was under the impression that Karston's Pings were the genesis.

[iacas]

My mistake. I was under the impression that Karston's Pings were the genesis.

Well they kind of were, but not quite exactly. It's a similar but slightly different debate these days than it was back then. They're related issues, and perhaps even brother and sister, but they're not identical twins and they're not the same person, if you like that way of thinking about things.

[hurley9192]

well, they were...however, some of the issue then was the closeness of the grooves to each other as well as the square grooves.

I would imagine that you will see some type of grandfather clause for existing clubs and a regulation on the grooves. The tour vans are usually the ones that sharpen the grooves for the tour players. Most tour players aren't even playing the same set you buy from the store or factory. They all have them ground and tweaked a little and a lot of times the tour vans are tweaking the grooves to be more square like. I would imagine this will curtail that practice a little.

[wengerlaw]

I think I read somewhere that clubs with U Grooves will be allowed in USGA competitions until 2009 (so no real grandfathering).

Personally, I think this rule change is ridiculous. The USGA opened this Pandora's Box when they allowed U Grooves and then subsequently allowed club head sizes to increase up to 460cc. It has now been long enough where young players on the cusp of turning pro have grown up playing the bomb and gouge style of play. To know make such a drastic change in the rules and force young players to learn how to play the game differently is simply not fair. The USGA should have seen this coming. I think it is elitist and outdated thinking for them to make such a drastic change so late in the game.

Equipment isn't the issue, it is the fact that more athletic people are now playing the game and using the new technology to overpower existing courses. If the USGA really wants to protect scores, I think the only fair option is for courses to be designed and retrofitted to make the Bomb and Gouge style of play less attractive (higher rough, furrowed bunkers, more doglegs which require shotmaking rather than brute strength).

[lamebums]

If they change the rules, it's only going to hurt the average player more. The average joe is already being left well behind the pros (driving distance, for example), and this will just cause more damage. Although I doubt the majority of average joe's could impart enough spin out of the rough to make a difference, it might make the difference between a ball that stays on the back fringe or one that rolls into a greenside trap, costing another stroke. (For pros and average duffers.)

I think something ridiculous like this would just drive millions of people who are on the verge of quitting to actually quit. Just like if they were to dial down the ball's distance, USGA, take foot, stick in mouth.

They imposed the 460CC limit on drivers well before drivers got that big. Good call. Since it didn't affect anyone's already-in-the-bag equipment. Not this deal, though. I'm not going to replace my irons and wedges just because of a USGA ruling. I don't have that kind of spare cash.

[wengerlaw]

I think something ridiculous like this would just drive millions of people who are on the verge of quitting to actually quit. Just like if they were to dial down the ball's distance, USGA, take foot, stick in mouth.

Something else might happen, which also would not be good for the USGA or golf in general: The average player who just plays with his buddies on the weekend and doesn't plan on playing in any USGA events may simply decide to play with nonconforming clubs. I know that the average golfer has pretty much stuck with using "legal" drivers that conform to USGA COR limits. However, if the USGA keeps insisting on rolling back technolgy which makes the game less fun for the average player, you may see a market develop for nonconforming clubs. If people begin to thumb their noses at the USGA, it hurts the group's credibility and stature.

[iacas]

I think I read somewhere that clubs with U Grooves will be allowed in USGA competitions until 2009 (so no real grandfathering).

That only applies to people who PLAY in such competitions. And it's not just USGA competitions, but any where the committee adopts the provision (or what would be a provision, since there's not even a rule right now).

Personally, I think this rule change is ridiculous. The USGA opened this Pandora's Box when they allowed U Grooves and then subsequently allowed club head sizes to increase up to 460cc.

So rather than try to fix it and admit the mistake, we should just go on as if nothing's wrong? That hardly seems appropriate.

The USGA should have seen this coming.

They didn't. We're where we are now. Unless you've got a time machine waiting, I think it's a waste of time to blame people who have retired from the USGA for the state of the game as it is currently.

I think it is elitist and outdated thinking for them to make such a drastic change so late in the game.

You're just throwing words out there, right? Because I can't for the life of me figure out how "elitism" fits in here.

Equipment isn't the issue, it is the fact that more athletic people are now playing the game and using the new technology to overpower existing courses.

Ah, I see, you didn't actually READ the document the USGA put out. They put out a pretty comprehensive study that showed, again, that players of all levels (but particularly Tour-level players) generated as much spin with U-grooves from light rough as they do from the fairway. The same was not true of V-grooves.

It very much is about the equipment in this case. The USGA is making the case, or trying to, that because there's no penalty for being in light rough - you can still go right at tucked pins and spin the ball and stick it close - it's led to the "bombing." They're trying to correct the "gouge" so the "bomb" portion will self-correct.

If the USGA really wants to protect scores, I think the only fair option is for courses to be designed and retrofitted to make the Bomb and Gouge style of play less attractive (higher rough, furrowed bunkers, more doglegs which require shotmaking rather than brute strength).

Right, that's so much less costly than requiring people to buy new clubs - something they do anyway.

If they change the rules, it's only going to hurt the average player more.

No, it won't. The average player doesn't get much benefit from grooves. They don't generate enough clubhead speed or make contact as reliably as a Tour player.

Although I doubt the majority of average joe's could impart enough spin out of the rough to make a difference, it might make the difference between a ball that stays on the back fringe or one that rolls into a greenside trap, costing another stroke. (For pros

The "for pros" part is right, and again, that's kind of the point...

I think something ridiculous like this would just drive millions of people who are on the verge of quitting to actually quit.

I don't think there are "millions" on the verge of quitting. Please, people, let's dispense with the made-up statistics and "sky is falling" scenarios and have an actual discussion here.

I'm not going to replace my irons and wedges just because of a USGA ruling. I don't have that kind of spare cash.

You keep your clubs for 10 years without replacing them? I find that hard to believe.

Something else might happen, which also would not be good for the USGA or golf in general: The average player who just plays with his buddies on the weekend and doesn't plan on playing in any USGA events may simply decide to play with nonconforming clubs.

So what? That same guy doesn't know the rules of golf anyway. They take mulligans, they don't have a clue what you do when you lose a ball, and they give themselves putts. Who cares if they aren't playing legal equipment - they're not playing legal anyway!

However, if the USGA keeps insisting on rolling back technolgy which makes the game less fun for the average player,

This (proposed) rule has

nothing to do with the average player . It will not make the game "less fun" for them. This entire post may seem like a drive-by nit-picking, but picking nits are important. Again, I'd like to have an actual discussion here, not one full of made-up sky-is-falling baloney.

[wengerlaw]

I figured you would chime in on this one iacas. Without drawing things out, I want to clarify a couple of points. First of all, yes, I think that if the rules committee decided it was prudent to allow U grooves and larger clubheads, they should live with the style of play that these decisions have generated.

When I used the term "elitist", I was referring to the rules committee and the powers that be basically taking the position that they are the ones who need to "protect" the purity of the game from those who dare to play it in a way that doesn't conform to the traditional "fairways and greens" approach. This seems paternalistic and I don't think its their game to protect.

With respect to redesigning courses rather than rolling back technology, I agree its more expensive for courses to be redesigned. However, that is a cost decision that the course owners can make if they think it is necessary to protect the difficulty of their course. It is not something that is being shoved down the throat of the average golfer.

[Fourputt]

I figured you would chime in on this one iacas.

You still don't seem to see the point that this proposed change will have no significant effect on the average golfer... not even on the above average golfer. The average player can't spin the ball from the rough even WITH the current grooves. Changing them is not going to have any effect on his game. This is only targeted at the upper tier of bomb and gouge players. And feeling sorry for someone who has to change his method of play... well that's just too bad. These guys are supposed to be good. If they can't adjust, then they don't belong there anyway.

Face it... professional golf has become boring. If nothing else, the TV ratings can tell you that. Bang a drive, hack a wedge from wherever the ball ended up. Ho-hum. If nothing else, we might actually get some entertainment from the Tour again if this change is implemented.

[wengerlaw]

I agree that the average golfer likely won't be penalized as much as the pros. I also agree that the bomb and gouge style of play isn't as fun to watch. I just don't like the idea of the USGA trying to fix a mistake by rolling back technology.

[lamebums]

Can I actually get some information on where it says that the average joe is incapable of getting spin on his ball out of the rough? I'll grant you he's not going to hit his ball 100 percent right in the middle of the sweet spot, he's going to top his ball, skull it, shank it, whatever, as well. But there are times he'll hit it on the screws.

To make bomb and gouge less desirable to the pros, we have to make fairway bunkers more punishing and grow the rough longer. That way, you're actually penalized for gripping it and ripping it, rather than fairways and greens.

(As to whoever said cost would be an issue: Cut the rough less often. If anything, it saves money because there's less wear and tear on the lawn mowers. And furrow the bunkers like they did a few years ago, to make a clean pick all but impossible. Problem solved.)

[iacas]

Can I actually get some information on where it says that the average joe is incapable of getting spin on his ball out of thr rough?

Look at the USGA study.

Obviously there are "times" when he'll get spin, but that's beside the point. Heck, the average golfer might actually improve, because if he plays for little to no spin 100% of the time, reverting to v-grooves will guarantee that he's played correctly (i.e. trying to bounce the ball onto the green or allowing for some release).

To make bomb and gouge less desirable to the pros, we have to make fairway bunkers more punishing and grow the rough longer. That way, you're actually penalized for gripping it and ripping it, rather than fairways and greens.

That wouldn't accomplish the same thing.

(As to whoever said cost would be an issue: Cut the rough less often. If anything, it saves money because there's less wear and tear on the lawn mowers. And furrow the bunkers like they did a few years ago, to make a clean pick all but impossible. Problem solved.)

Not every course - and certainly not every hole - has fairway bunkers. Plus, fairway bunkers for pros are placed at entirely different locations than fairway bunkers for better amateurs and certainly for average players.

Additionally, longer rough will have an effect on average golfers. Changing the grooves will not. The changes you propose are short-sighted and detrimental.

[Big Lex]

I haven't read everyone's posts completely, so sorry if I repeat something obvious or say something otherwise stupid...

Iacas' posts are of course right on the money with respect to the factual things about the USGA study, etc. I don't completely agree with everything he says, though.

We can debate what things we want to tweak or roll back or whatever, but why are we doing any of it? You have to decide what the problem is, or even if there is one.

Is the game easier today than it was in the 1970s? In some ways, of course. The clubs are easier to hit, of course. But the courses have gotten longer and more difficult.

Can pros hit it a mile, spin it from the rough, get up and down from anywhere? Yes, they can. And the equipment helps them quite a bit. But they all have the equipment, and they still give the money to the best guy, so in the end the equipment hasn't made much difference to them.

But the equipment has made a difference to those of us who just go out for fun. It's fun to hit a 250 yard drive, even though you know it doesn't mean any more than your 225 yard one did 12 years ago. It's still fun...to hit it high, to reach a par 5 in 2 once in a while, to have a little better result when you miss the center of the face.

Most of the redesigning of classic golf courses has been done already. It's not a big issue.

Even with all of so-called "cheater" technology, is there anyone who thinks golf is easy? I've never had a set of clubs that keeps me from hitting a shank now and then.

What it amounts to is that a few people don't like the way today's pros play the game. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, and I realize they know more about golf and are better at the game than I. But I don't think we need to rewrite the record book and change manufacturing practices just so the pros can play more like they did in 1973.

Having said all of that, as an isolated issue, I think the groove change is a good idea. It will make the game harder for pros, and it won't have too much effect on the average golfer. Anyone with a handicap under 15 or 16 will notice the change, for sure, and will probably lose a stroke or two here and there because of the ball not checking as well on finesse shots. But, as iacas says, there will probably be other times when the added "release" and the flyer shots will end up helping the chopper.

Practically speaking, I'm fine with it. On a "philosophical" level, I hate it.

Now, if they decide to roll the ball back, then I'm headed leading a march on Far Hills.

[Mr.Buckethead]

A bit harsh on Lameburns this time. I felt he made a few good points.

If the PGA is concerned about professional golf, then the first thing they need to do is make the courses a little tougher each week. Longer rough, tougher traps, trickier pin placement can do all of those things. Reposition a few tee boxes and force players to shape all their shots off of the tee. These are all reasonable accomodations that can be made on the professional level.

Having someone at the country club check my wedges in 3 years for non-conforming grooves? No thank you.



As for current golf on TV being boring, I just don't get it. I don't get super excited because someone is hitting a 6 iron as opposed to hitting a wedge. It isn't must see TV when someone has decided to hit a 3 wood as opposed to driver. If the PGA is boring, it is because most players lack personality, are scared to be a little bit controversial, or they just aren't marketed well. Give us some reason to cheer for these guys, play up sentimental moments (ala the Olympics) and get people behind certain players.

[lamebums]

Not every course - and certainly not every hole - has fairway bunkers. Plus, fairway bunkers for pros are placed at entirely different locations than fairway bunkers for better amateurs and certainly for average players.

That's why pros play the tips, and normal people (should) play the white tees.

Additionally, longer rough will have an effect on average golfers. Changing the grooves will not. The changes you propose are short-sighted and detrimental.

Then just make the rough longer for professional events.