Golfweek: Policy Board Leaning Toward Groove Postponement
Alex Miceli reports that three members of the four-man PGA Tour Policy Board are leaning toward a vote to delay 2010's condition of competition change requiring the use of new grooves.
But with the start date looming ever closer, numerous PGA Tour players have expressed concern that they don’t have sufficient time to test clubs with the new grooves – nor to fully comprehend the impact they’ll have on their games.
It's June. That means they've had five more months, no?
Now, if the players are questioning the USGA's research or the tiered implementation or the backdoor bifurcation, I've long wondered why they and their affliliated manufacturers weren't more skeptical. What took them so long?
Some equipment manufacturers also have complained about the hardship they’ll incur, especially during a challenging economy, to meet the original deadline. They say there are significant costs associated with the new grooves, including more expensive manufacturing processes.
I understand that most of the people who will be required to play the new grooves get their clubs free. Therefore the companies won't recoup costs to make these new clubs. But who lobbied for the right to give out free stuff to anyone with a pulse?
And if there is a massive increase in the cost of manufacturing, then isn't a mere postponement only going to make this an issue again in 2011?
But other companies such as Ping say they already have made the necessary business changes and insist it would be unfair to delay the rule change.
Nice irony, eh?
Cink declined to discuss how he would vote, but Faxon and Johnson told Golfweek they were leaning toward delaying the groove change. Toms could not be reached for comment.
The positions taken by the player directors historically have had significant influence on policy board decisions. But it is possible the five other members, including PGA of America president Jim Remy, could overrule a player-voting bloc.
I don't believe that's ever happened? First time for everything!
Friday, June 26, 2009 at 02:53 PM
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (20)
The news of the possible bailout on the PGA Tour's Condition of Competition has led to a lot of posting on the equipment discussion boards. The general demographic on those discussion boards trends toward young guys who love new golf equipment, are knowledgable about it and especially about what is being used on tour, as opposed to what is sold at retail. Often, the retail and tour products are different things. Anyway, all the young dudes like hot-rod golf equipment, and a majority probably doesn't much like new equipment regulations proposed, they think, by a generation that wishes to return to persimmon and balata.
In reading and commenting on those boards, I expressed some frustration, however, with all of the misunderstanding there exists, even among that select deomgraphic, about the meaning of the USGA grooves policy. By way of example only, lots of commenters mistakenly believe that they will need to go out and buy new, "conforming" equipment. [It's amazing to find out how many people will attempt qualifying for the 2010 U.S. Open... ;-)...]
Anyway, as part and parcel of that debate -- a very small sidelight at best -- I read some readers' claims that they were "glad that [their] Titleist AP2's were already conforming." I found that claim surprising, since there are very few if any currently "compliant" [a bad term of art in this instance, I suggest] irons on the market. And, the Titleist AP1 and AP2 models (very good clubs, I'd concede) were originally designed and released to the market when the groove rules were still only in the talking stages. The Titleist website is mostly, and curiously, silent on the gonfiguration of their iron grooves; their "Technology" page (which appears to be personally edited by Wally Uihlein and which features a flock of anti-regulation op-eds) rails against USGA regluation, including revcised grooves rules. And it complains about the groove rule. On Titleist's Tour Blog, it is claimed that the AP1 and AP2 grooves comply with the 2010 groove standards.
Titleist informed Eric J. Barzeski's blog, The Sand Trap, in the course of an eqipment review, that the AP1 and AP2 irons were compliant with the 2010 standards. I questioned the fact, and Eric wrote to me and assured me that he had been so informed by Titleist.
Now, here is where it (finally) gets interesting in the context of this story and Alex Micelli's latest reporting: Brad Faxon and Zach Johnson, both Titleist equipment "Ambassadors", use the Titleist AP2's as their 4-9 irons. So the questions quite naturally arise:
Are Johnson and Faxon already playing with "compliant" equipment? What's so hard about "compliance" if Faxon and Zach Johnson are already there? Faxon and Johnson, it should be acknowledged, use Vokey Spin-Milled wedges that have grooves that are decidedly non-compliant with the 2010 rule scheme. Maybe that is their gripe.
I frankly doubt that the AP2's were built to a standard that was not in effect at the time of their design and manufacture. But I leave it to the USGA technical staff to make that determination. I am aware that that past disputes over equpment "compliance" have left equipment manufacturers petrified about any admission, no matter how reasonable, that their equipment does not comply with any rule, however remote.
But isn't it at least a little amusing that, on paper at least, Tour Policy Board members Faxon and Johnson, who apparently are protesting the implementation of the 2010 Condition of Competition regarding grooves, are already playing with "compliant" irons according to Titleist?
To me, this recent statement from the PGA Tour Policy Board suggests that everyone involved - players and manufacturers - can't believe the rule is actually going into effect. As if they figured someone, at some point, would "do something," such as sue the USGA, obtain an injunction, etc.
The very deliberate, step-wise manner in which the issue was handled (the research...publishing of the study...the stipulated commentary period...the delayed rule enactment...the GRADUATED implementation, with grandfather clause, etc.) makes it hard to believe anyone can have a legitimate beef about the rule, at least at this advanced stage of the process.
It all "smells fishy" to me.
Additionally, it's not so much the clubs up to the 9I that matter a whole lot, but rather the wedges that will most concern pros.
I still support the groove rule and hope that everything goes along as it should.
Kind of like trying to put a cat in a washing machine . . . after three or four tries, surrender seems acceptable.
Did Alex Micelli correctly report the names of the four player-delegate members of the Tour Policy Board?
Micelli reported that Faxon, Cink, Toms and Zach Johnson were the board members. Just earlier this week, however, Stachura and Johnson were reporting on Joe Oglivie as a TPB board member. Did Ogilive replace Johnson? Did Micelli get that one name wrong?
(Ogilivie plays under a Titleist ball contract, but a Taylor Made clubs deal. I know that there is frequent confusion with the Tour Policy Board and the Player Advisory Council; I don't know if that is how this may have occurred.)
the USGA to prohibit "non compliant" grooves in the 2010 United States Open championship. Is it not likely that the Masters would also require compliance? . . .
It's Cink, Toms, Faxon and Johnson.
Start playing by the rule and let the chips fall as they may.
Sheesh.
This stuff is not good for the image of the PGA.
So the USGA - the organization that has the role of rules maker for the game of golf - may find PGA Tour players choosing not to play by the rules? . . .
>>
Choosing NOT to adopt an optional Condition of Competition is a long way from 'choosing not to play by the rules.'
>>
If so, I for one hope the NCAA and other major organizations do abide by USGA rules. . .
>>
The Condition is not recommended for the NCAA (and similar levels) until 2014.
>>
Further, I expect
the USGA to prohibit "non compliant" grooves in the 2010 United States Open championship.
>>
USGA President Vernon already said (at Bethpage) that the USGA would likely NOT adopt the Condition if the TOUR waited.
>>
Is it not likely that the Masters would also require compliance? . . .
>>
It is unlikely that The Masters or PGA Championship would adopt this Condition if the TOUR did not do so.
Wally at Acushnet sent a form letter to all Titleist players to lobby Tim The TOUR to put off the rule change.
So Joe Ogilvie is NOT a TPB board-member...
Then what was Joe Ogilvie's official bully pulpit for his curious and debatable comments during the last week, to the effect that "they botched" the rule and that players like him needed to "push back" for the "average guy" (!?)
Is Ogilvie on the 16-member Player Advisory Committee?
I agree, play anything. But the myth will continue, that's for sure.
Billions of dollars every year for decades and no reduction in the average handicap! It is a very profitable myth.
True, but Miceli reported that three of four were likely voting against it, so I went with that for this groundbreaking post!