USGA Groove Change Question, Vol. 2

Having failed to try and make a point the first time, I'm going to take another crack at this.

In the press release announcing their proposed rule change, the USGA goes out of its way to note that it is not impacting the average player. In the same announcement, they are bending the rules on adjustable equipment for the average player. And then there's the language about conditions only for "highly skilled players."

Reader Michael in the original post on this gets to the essence of my point much more succinctly than I:

According to the language of the proposal, clubs that conform to the new standards would be required in “…competitive events conducted after Jan. 1, 2009…” with the USGA recommending that this “…Condition apply only to competitions involving highly skilled players.” If implemented as written, would this proposal not amount to a defacto bifurcation of the rules of golf as they apply to golfers of differing skills?

The proposal also raises the question of just how the USGA and other sanctioned Competition Committees will determine what constitutes a “skilled player.” Looking at the handicap requirements for golfers attempting to qualify in various USGA competitions, one can’t help but notice that it will be quite a chore. Persons wishing to compete in the US Open, US Amateur, US Amateur Public Links, or the US Junior Amateur, for example, are required to have handicaps of not less than 1.4, 2.4, 8.4, and 6.4, respectively. Will all of those competitors be considered skilled players?

What about events for Seniors and Women, whose minimum handicap requirements are much higher? Are they all skilled players or will there be some bifurcation of the rules to account for differing skill levels? Will the NCAA rule that all college golf competitors are skilled players? Under this proposal, a situation in which Division I players would be required to carry 100% conforming clubs, while Division II and III players would carry differing numbers of conforming clubs –a trifurcation of the rules - is not as far-fetched as it seems at first glance.

So is the USGA, which has long scoffed at bifurcation of the rules, in effect bifurcating the game with the groove announcement?

Wouldn't a bifurcation via a rolled back "highly skilled" player ball spec be simpler than this? 

Comments

[Hawkeye]

"Wouldn't a bifurcation via a rolled back "highly skilled" player ball spec be simpler than this?

Couldn't part of the problem with this be related to economical factors? The cost of production for such a ball would likely be sky high, since very few amateurs would feel inclined to buy a product that was blatatly marketed as "rolled-back". The companies wouldn't make much money from the pros, since they don't pay for equipment. Vice versa, the hideous over-pricing of a popular ball, such as the Pro V1, wouldn't be possible, since the popular "amateur balls" wouldn't have as much pull from being the ball of choice for the pros. Not that I know why, or how much, the rulemakers would care about the budgets of the equipment companies, but it's a thought...

[KS]

What an idiotic idea. A foundational element of the game is that we play the same game that the guys on TV do. They have the same rules that we have to adhere to. Now we have two different games?

You can use non-conforming equipment right now on a golf course. There is nothing stopping you. The reason that equipment manufacturers make conforming equipment is because people want to play the game that Tiger, Jack, and all the greats do. See Callaway's aborted non-conforming driver rollout a few years back for further details.

Dear USGA -- do something about "the game", not "the pro's game"? Roll back the ball, roll back the COR, rollback the groove requirements, but don't make it such that there are two different games.

Here's an idea I had. I have no idea whether this would work in practice, but it's a little more out of the box than what's coming out of New Jersey: http://bitterangrygolfsnob.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!FCF532E688AE381E!121.entry

[Chuck]

Here is one possible scenario: Club golfers accross the world will figure that the "Condition" will not apply to them in their club championships and invitationals. And they will flock, like lemmings, to buy fresh new sharp-grooved irons on Dec 31, 2009. It will be like the market for grandfathered Ping Eye 2's. Only industry-wide.
Woe upon the makers of new irons after January 1, 2010.

[Seitz]

The strange aspect, at least in my opinion, is that apparently you could use U-grooved clubs in normal, everyday play, and in club events. So in other words, you could use those clubs to earn a handicap low enough to compete in events, like the Am qualifier, in which those clubs may not be allowed. Does that make sense to anyone?

I look forward to scorecards that read "Almost all USGA rules govern all play".

[Donald B. Franklin]

Are you folks aware that optional Conditions of Competitions for equipment already exist (recommended for use when 'expert players' comprise the field)? See Appendix I; Part C; Section 1 of the Rules of Golf.

A groove condition would just be an additional CofC under the same recommendation 'umbrella.'

[kenonepuitt]

"A groove condition would just be an additional CofC under the same recommendation 'umbrella."

True enough, but the other condition for highly skilled players is the one-ball rule.

Unfortunately, this new condition doesn't involve 3- or 4-dollar golf balls all of which are conforming, it involves making several hundred dollar sets of irons nonconforming.

K

[Donald B. Franklin]

>>
Unfortunately, this new condition doesn't involve 3- or 4-dollar golf balls all of which are conforming, it involves making several hundred dollar sets of irons nonconforming.
>>

The pissing and moaning that I was addressing was in regards to bifurcation of the Rules not about expense. Expense is a separate issue and, in my opinion, a non-issue due to the time periods in the proposal.