"We’d like to see the groove configuration requirements changed."

Commissioner Finchem, in a Q&A with Michael Arkush at Yahoo:

Arkush:  Where you do stand on the heavily-debated technology issue? Does the game need a uniform ball?

Finchem: I don’t think we need a uniform ball. The whole ball controversy had to do with jumps in length. Over the last four years, the distance increase on the PGA Tour has been negligible; in fact, this year, it was down a little bit. In terms of the way the game is played, though, we do have a couple of issues. We feel like there should be a bigger penalty when you hit the ball off the fairway than currently exists, and we’d like to see the groove configuration requirements changed.

The USGA must be pleased that the Commissioner is on message. I wonder if his position will change when the manufacturers make it clear they hate the grooves idea.

It will also be interesting to see he's as adamant about this position as Deane Beman was since some believe it cost Beman his job. 

Comments

[Smolmania]

Why would Tim worry about upsetting the equipment manufacturers? Perhaps because of the amounts of cash that the members of his Tour receive from them. The man never ceases to amaze with the drivel that leaves his lips. . . It's not how far the ball goes. It's the grooves! Paging Frank Thomas.

[DBH]

'The whole ball controversy had to do with jumps in length.'

LOL! Love the past tense. Done and done I guess. Next issue...

[johnny knoxville]

Maybe the lack of distance jump is all because the PGA tour guys are cutting back on using the driver. Wasn't J.B. holmes lamenting about not using the driver ?

This leaves all the other courses out to dry as they can't narrow the fairways and deepen the rough and so they fight the battle of whether to build new tees, move bunkers, move greens, etc.

Meanwhile nearly every course hosting a major is building new tees or moving bunker & greens so it doesn't make much sense.

All this course work, alteration, etc. for what is basically a $1 ball.

[JH]

The bastards stole my band name...."The Groove Configuration"

[Chuck]

Of course, the "uniform" ball notion is a straw man. I know, some people have floated the idea of bifurcation and a 'competition' ball. But that's not really a first option. The first option is a rollback of the general overall distance standard. A competition ball is the last option, when golf associations (first the OGA, then the R&A? then ANGC?) hav exhausted all pleas to the USGA to do its job.

[Smitty]

The modern ball needs a SMASH factor which would bring the distance back to a respectable long ball of 290 yards, instead of averages seen at 320. Square grooves were finally put to rest by the out of court settlement involving PING. That's not a Straw Man argument, just the facts ma'am. Why didn't we hear Tim Finchem's concern on square grooves between 1991 and 2005?

Finchem is grooveless, and what would he know about BALLS?

[Four-putt]

All this talk about modifying grooves is nothing more than a smokescreen, a reach for a life preserver in a sea of potential lawsuits. Why? The modification is a relatively minor change that would not harm any company’s marketing plans for their irons. It would not make a whit of difference for over 95 percent of golfers, who’d never notice a difference.

http://chicagolandgolf.com/blog1/?p=25

4p

[Hux]

Though I admit I haven't looked closely enough at this issue to see how it's going to directly affect me, I've already determined what my course of strategy will be.

Grooves are really, really small so I just won't tell anybody. If anyone asks, I'll lie.

[Four-putt]

Hux, the R&A and USGA too often forget they only govern those who volunteer to be governed.

4p

[M. Tolleson]

Banning square grooves is a great idea. You guys are missing the point. This goes through, it paves the way for more changes. Let's take the game back.

A competition ball is a good idea. It doesn't change the "one set of rules" thing; any tournament can impose any ball restriction they want. I mean, don't tournament committees set up the course whatever way they want? What's wrong with specifying a limited flight ball?

If they did this, it would be accepted in no time and nobody would ever know the difference.

But I agree with drastic equipment reg changes. The current distance ball could stay if you allowed a competition ball.

The equipment companies should love it, because it's more balls to sell.