[fedordzen]

Making Sense of the New Groove Rule More Difficult than Pitching Out from the Rough
Print E-mail
Written by Brandon Underwood Online Editor

The new groove rule is making my head hurtThe governing bodies of golf and PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem have proved to be more resolute in their decision making than whichever agency within our often inept federal government was in charge of the transition from analog to digital television.

Tuesday morning Finchem announced that there would be no delay in the implementation of a rule change outlined by The U.S. Golf Association and Royal & Ancient, the organizations who are to golf what the Guardian Council is to Iran, that would alter allowable dimensions in grooves on most irons and all wedges (24˚ of loft or more), thus creating less spin on shots out of the rough and therefore placing more of a premium on driving accuracy.

For me and presumably the rest of the golfing public, this controversial rule change is a lot of scientific NASA talk that'd I'd rather not read about, but I've done a bit of digging and here is what I was able to come up with.

On his blog, The Wedge Guy, President of Eidolon Golf Terry Koehler pointed out a few untruths about the groove changes during U.S. Open week. Koehler discusses groove shape in length, and it's a bunch of nonsense about letters.

"The big lie," Koehler writes," is that square grooves are being outlawed. The USGA Rule does nothing of the sort. It does not propose to govern at all what the shape of grooves can be, any differently than the current rule. We can continue to make our grooves shaped like a "V", a "U" or "square."

So then what does the new rule mean for manufacturers?

"It changes the way manufacturers have to measure grooves and spacing. Before, we only had to concern ourselves with the width, depth and space between the grooves," The Wedge Guy writes. "Those requirements and measurements haven't changed, but the USGA added a fourth measurement requirement that defines a formula for the volume of groove dimension per inch of face. In simple terms, square grooves would have to be further apart than ‘v' grooves because they can channel away more grass and moisture.




And...Secondly, the rule adds a new aspect, in that we will have to ensure that the edges of the grooves have a slight radius on them, whereas currently we can offer you the nice sharp edges that result from the milling process. That, fellow golfers, will likely be the key to a reduction in spin from the newly conforming wedges and irons made after the rule goes into effect.

Thank you Wedge Guy, who knew I'd need an advanced degree to blog today.

Now onto why this groove change is necessary, the part of the equation I'm having trouble understanding.

Apparently the R&A and the USGA commissioned a study that spanned nearly two years to determine how driving accuracy correlated to earnings and they were displeased with the results.

At the time of the study only one player was in the top 10 on both the money list and driving accuracy list - that player being Jim Furyk, who ironically enough hasn't won in nearly two years.

Dissatisfied that players who were hitting it straight off the tee weren't winning enough, the governing bodies of golf announced their intentions to implement a rule change in hopes of once again installing rough as a more penal element. Basically, rearing back and bombing your drive as far as possible with utter disregard for placement was pissing a few golf purists off.

So now here we are; the "condition of competition" will be adopted by the PGA Tour, meaning that players will need their equipment to comply effective Jan. 1, 2010.

Just for fun, let's note the top 5 players in driving accuracy at this point in time:

1. David Toms
2. Joe Durant
3. Brian Gay
4. Scott Verplank
5. Tim Clark


Just a hunch, but I'm willing to bet my old square grooved irons that none of these guys will turn into Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson next year. When asked about the rule change prior to his tournament in Washington, D.C. this week, Woods expressed satisfaction about the rule change.

"I think it's great," Woods said. "We've known for over a couple years now what this decision was going to be, when it was going to come down, and we've had plenty of time to make our adjustments."

Basically, Finchem echoed that statement and emphasized that everyone was given ample time to prepare for this, and even if a delay would help everyone make the transition, the time is now.

"I think that we're late in the process," he said during a teleconference. "I think there's been a lot of reliance on the schedule by individuals, by equipment manufacturers, by other tours, by other golf organizations in taking steps to prepare for this schedule. We got a couple of requests to consider a delay, and we challenged whether that was a problem. And we concluded that it was."

We recreational golfers can continue to use irons and wedges manufactured through 2010, and new rules won't apply to us until 2024. So I view that as basically a non-issue. Now you'll have to settle for spinning a shot once every golf season instead of twice.

It's a bit disconcerting that this rule could make the game a tad more difficult for everyone in the future, but it's already difficult enough I doubt we'll notice. The thought of pros and weekend golfers using different equipment has caused somewhat of a stir.

According to an article by Doug Ferguson of the Associated Press, Acushnet Co., parent company of Titleist and Cobra, argued that the implementation of the rule change in 2010 would create an unprecedented disconnect between different levels of golfers.

Others were just flat out critical of the rule change at any point in time, albeit releasing a statement the night before the ruling is about to take place probably won't get much done.

Ping Chairman and CEO John Solheim released this statement Monday night:

"The new groove rule harms the game and golfers and should be dropped. The recent uproar about it from PGA Tour players demonstrates this fact," he said. "However, the PGA Tour's proposal to delay implementing the rule is not a solution. You can't turn a bad idea into a good one by waiting an extra year to adopt it. We hope everyone who cares about the future of this game keeps that simple concept in mind."

Grooves, Grooves and more GroovesIf anything this whole controversy only adds to the disconnect between the recreational golfer and the guy who watches every Tour event while planning his annual trip to St. Andrews, and pushes more people away from the game because of the slew of unrecognizable words being pulled from golf's already confusing lexicon to describe an effort to decrease ball spin when hitting from a patch of grass that hasn't been mowed in a few days.

Frank Thomas, former technical director of the USGA, pointed out in an article that he submitted to the New York Times and is now posted on Titleist's Web site that anything adding to the difficulty of the game is unwelcome.

"Golf participation is declining, and we have yet to hear of people quitting the game because they found it too easy," Thomas wrote. "We do not need equipment rules aimed specifically at making it harder for Tiger Woods or anyone else."

I agree, and I think that anything that makes on-course play or off-course understanding more of a challenging task is fundamentally bad for the game.

Furthermore, I understand that this is an attempt to limit the effect technology is having on the game, but I doubt it will decrease the size and strength of players. Won't companies like TaylorMade and Nike find new ways to help players spin the ball out of the rough? It's unfortunate, but the fact is that some classic golf courses just won't have the needed length to host major PGA Tour events. And that's ok, every golf course doesn't need to be 7,500 yards long.

But we're not talking about baseball here. PGA Tour players are subject to drug testing, they're using the same conforming equipment and golf balls. Everyone is subject to an identical par. Whether they're using V-shaped grooves or U-shaped grooves, everyone is using them.

At the end of the day, I wonder what exactly will this accomplish and will it be worth all of the resulting confusion.