"The new standard golf ball has eliminated from the top-notch ranks the mechanical golfer of the past and the skilled shotmaker will now reap his deserved reward"

I know many of you are tired of hearing about grooves already and you've got nerfs lined up to toss at the television for every announcer declaring a non-spinning shot to be a product of the rule change.

But (A) it beats talking about Tiger and (B) it will be fun to see if the as-advertised impact on skill and power will really happen. It's also fascinating because this is a fairly unprecedented rollback. Oh, and (C) have you seen the field list for Kapalua? Grooves look darn interesting in that context!

Bill Fields takes a look back at the many rule changes and where the current groove rule change falls, giving some much needed context to just how significant this change is in the scheme of golf rule tweaks.

I'd like this bit inserted into the USGA's ball study, entering year seven and hopefully expedited when we see only a tiny groove-rule-change impact on distance:

Golf ball innovation went unchecked until 1921, when a maximum weight of 1.62 ounces and minimum diameter of 1.62 inches was established. The rubber-core models, called "Bounding Billies" because of their zip, alarmed many who feared -- in a prelude to more recent concerns about how far the ball traveled -- the challenge was being removed from the game because the new designs soared as many as 60 yards farther than the guttie.

As of Jan. 1, 1931, the USGA veered away from the R&A and mandated that a ball had to be a minimum of 1.68 inches and could weigh no more than 1.55 ounces -- slowing it down and making it more susceptible to the wind. Traditionalists such as architect Donald Ross loved the rollback. "The new standard golf ball has eliminated from the top-notch ranks the mechanical golfer of the past and the skilled shotmaker will now reap his deserved reward," Ross noted in the Boston Herald. "The game was becoming too stereotyped with the old ball. [It] did not place enough of a premium on a well-hit shot. The sluggers were getting such distances off the tee that they had nothing but easy pitches for the second shots."

Comments

[MRP]

Great Ross quote and great post.

This technology issue seems to have been at the heart of golf for many, many moons. This groove change perhaps is a step in the right direction.

I lIke some of the pictures you've posted along with the article...Jones wedge which helped him win at St. Andrews and Travis' putter which was outlawed (if I am not mistaken).

But don't you think the mind of competitors and scientist will find some way to make getting the ball in the hole easier regardless?

If it is not equipment technology, perhaps human bio-engineering?

[F. X. Flinn]

And before anyone posts "see, the distance impact wasn't harmful in the past," implying that the current level of bombing and gouging is OK, bear in mind that it was the move from the gutta percha to the solid core wound balls that caused the first round of course lengthening. A lot of people were brought into the game because it became less expensive to play. Now we have a situation where the best balls cost double and the course lengths frustrate. Seems to me we had a happy medium for a long time with the wound ball, and now we are out of balance -- costs increase, play declines, that's overall less fun for all golfers. I too look forward to the 7 year ball study reaching this same conclusion and rolling back the ball.

[Wisconsin Reader]

Is it really going to take 7 years for the USGA to determine the golf ball flies too far?

How about after June, 2013 when the Open is played at Merion? . . . I understand the scores may not be all that low due to the greens stimping at 17.5 and golf bags being lost in the 36" grass surrounds. . But - Alvaro or Bubba or somebody having 11 eagle putts in one round (and shooting 71) should tip somebody off about the golf ball?

[Fo Shiz]

As if anybody needed any more reason to fear the USGA overstepping its boundaries and limiting equipment I submit the following, as alluded to in the article above:

If it weren't for the draconian limits placed on shaft length, we'd all still be marveling at Rocky Thompson's prodigious length off the tee and dramatic putting green dance moves as he continued to captivate the golf public and catapult the (still-named) Senior Tour to its largest viewing audience ever on CNBC. Plus, I'd be able to get at least, like, 19 bucks on Ebay for my Killer Bee Driver (with Bullwhip shaft, suckaz!)

Long live the mayor of Toco, Texas!

[tlavin]

The "problem" with the ball is nearly as old as the game is, in America, anyway. I read an article by O.B. Keeler from around 1928, who strongly lamented that the "modern" ball had to be changed. His main point was that the great golf courses then extant would have to be greatly lengthened in order to accommodate the great distances that players could hit the "modern" ball. He was concerned that courses would have to be stretched to 7000 yards.

That was 70 years ago. The only thing that has changed (other than many, many newer, more modern balls) is that we are now lamenting that courses will have to stretch to 8000 yards to accommodate the great players.

The other difference, of course, is that the distance is almost exclusively a concern ONLY as it relates to the very best players in the game, whether they be top collegiate amateurs or professional golfers. For the rest of us, the ball, the clubs and the rest of the technology is just fine, thank you. Unfortunately, if one really wanted to "protect" the old, classic golf courses from the scourge of technology, you would have to adopt a Luddite point of view and argue for ball bifurcation.

Ain't never gonna happen. Business will trump nostalgia every day.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The average PGA Tour golfer swings 11 to 12 MPH faster now than they did 15 years ago. That alone is 25 to 30 yards off the tee.

I continue to see no problem with current distances, particularly since they've leveled off and I don't foresee a way under the rules for distance to increase without, you know, simply swinging faster.

And I dare say 99% of the golf world likely agrees with me. Maybe 95% if a few support bifurcation because they don't want their own distances diminished.

[bsoudi]

While I DO get that longer courses are more expensive to build and maontain, I don't get how they make it "less fun" or "longer to play" for less skilled golfers. Especially with courses nowadays sporting 6 sets of tees.

My father-in-law would get so frustrated when he was starting to play he'd just quit at some point. We encouraged him to play from the "forward tees" and when he did, he had more fun and improved.

How hard is that?

[MRP]

Erik...

Given your quote...

"I don't foresee a way under the rules for distance to increase without, you know, simply swinging faster."

Obviously, you haven't seen the latest Winn Grips commericials. They say the new Winn grips are lighter and therefore promote faster swings speeds and farther drives.

Huh, huh...how about that technological breakthrough!!!

You see you can't keep a lid on technology as hi-tech as this and with the minds of these marketers...I mean scientists, the sky is the limit.

They will think of everything!!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

MRP, joking aside, all these "the ball is solely at fault" and even "the ball is the easiest to fix" people seem to neglect the fact that golfers swing the clubhead faster AND have optimized launch conditions.

The modern premium ball is just a 20-year-old Pinnacle or Top-Flite with a) some aerodynamic improvements, and b) more spin with shorter clubs.

At least they've stopped talking about the "boost" they thought (incorrectly) you got once you swung over a certain speed.

[MRP]

Erik...

I think you are correct. If I am remembering correctly, in Geoff's book he presents data that suggests the distance increase in the 2003 (?) timeframe, which was dramatic, was in part due to optimization of the launch angle.

Good stuff!