The Next Phase Of The Groove Debate...

...means hearing about the massive financial hardship this has caused for the manufacturers to retool their assembly lines. Joe Ogilvie on Twitter today:

Of course, if they didn't lobby the USGA for the right to give free equipment who can break 75, they'd be able to recoup the cost of the new grooves by selling the top amateurs the new, conforming wedges.

Now Ogilvie's first point is a great question. Don't most players want to be known for their skill instead of their ability to obtain a PING wedge?

Comments

[Pacduneslooper]

Rolling the grooves back is a bandaid on a gaping headwound. If the USGA or the PGA tour had any real interest in changing the way the game is played at the highest levels they'd roll the ball back. The grooves are a non issue. This is a lot of commotion about a non issue. The players using the ping wedges don't have a decided advantage over the field. And for all the players who used square grooves last year to now be disgusted about their use is silly....

[The Fake Fake]

Booo hooo-Hey sparky, go take your problems to Buffett, if he'll talk to you.

[Bob S.]

Heck no, the ability to go in and snark a last milli-second bid on eBay is an art, not something for an amateur.

[Farmingdale]

Has Phil somehow become less skillfull since he put that Ping wedge in his bag? Was that the exact moment his skill level dropped?

Mac O'Grady used a persimmon driver at the Aussie Sr. Open, did that render him the most skillful player in the field the moment he teed it up?

[OWGR Fan]

@pacduneslooper...

Square grooves are still legal in 2010 for all levels of play as long as they meet the measurement requirements set forth by the governing bodies.

Do square grooves conform?
Grooves may be "V" shaped or "U" shaped provided their sides diverge, they have a symmetrical cross-section and they meet the dimensional specifications under Rule 4c in Appendix II. Also, see figure IX in Appendix II of the Rules of Golf book.

http://www.usga.org/equipment/faq/Club-and-Ball-Testing-FAQs/#16

Really amazing how many golf writers and tour players are still unaware of this. The AP (assuming it was Doug Ferguson), si.com and espn.com golf writers this weekend in articles continued to get this wrong.


.

[Kevin]

I would love to see a detailed breakout of that $20 million cost.

[Kevin]

Bob S -- not really. It is all science, not art. See eSnipe.com which has been around for years.

[Rock]

18 mistresses, or a Ping Eye 2 wedge? It's not a toss-up for me.

[Chuck]

$20MM cost... they are obviously going to have to cut back on Tour-player endorsement money with a loss like that.

[thusgone]

i call bs on the $20mm loss claim. Club mfgs will recoup that and more when amateurs start buying new, conforming wedges. I know several guys who are not national players or anything like that who have bought the Vokey c-c wedges, even though they aren't subject to the rule.

[Fo Shiz]

This seems a little like the health care insurance reform debate. A small cohort of insurance insiders and lobbyists tried to make it seem like the insurance companies were going to get the shaft with any new regulations put upon them, when in reality the insurance mandate was going to hand them billions of dollars in new business on a silver platter. Likewise, although on a smaller scale, the club manufacturers will recoup millions in new wedge sales when everyone goes out to buy a new one either a) because of the new rules, b) because they want to be like their favorite Tour pro, or c) because "Hey, what's all this hubbub about wedges, anyway? Maybe I should go to Dick's and check it out..."

Furthermore, can somebody in the equipment industry shed some light on just how much money is spent on wedge development, anyway? It seems like the majority of research and marketing is spent (or should be spent) on new driver and ball technology, since those two pieces of equipment have much higher turnover (due in large part to marketing and research (did I mention marketing?)) In the amateur world, most players buy a new wedge every half-decade or so. It would seem that the only guys who change their wedges frequently enough to impact profit margin are getting them for free in the first place.

P.S. Speaking of new drivers, I just can't WAIT for Taylor Made to slap a couple of different stickers on the R9, change the color scheme, give it a new shaft and call it the R11. It doesn't exist yet, but Kenny Perry insists it's the longest club he's ever played.

[JohnV]

In 2008, Calloway sold $894M in clubs, $308M alone in irons. They had a pre-tax gain of $134M on their golf club sales and had $29M in Goodwill on clubs which I assume is from giving them away. I think they could afford a little retooling. I'm sure that Titleist, Taylor Made and the other big manufacturers had simlar margins and goodwill.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm opposed to people who are opposed to this rules change.