Letter From Saugerties, The Grooves So Far
Former USGA Executive Director Frank Hannigan writes...
Dear Geoff:
Have you noticed any difference in the way golf is being played on this year's PGA Tour? I sure haven't.
That's in direct contrast to the prophecies of the USGA which assured us the game would be dramatically different in 2010 owing to the USGA ban on U grooves - a ban accepted by the PGA Tour which, like all golf entities, is free to accept or reject USGA Rules.
The last two USGA presidents raved with glee over what they said would be their restoration of a better game, one in which accuracy would once again matter as much as power. Both said it had come to pass that it no longer mattered whether you hit the ball crooked, so long as you hit it far. One of the executive committee members, a golf architect no less, famously pronounced that the ban on U grooves would bring the game "back to the good old days of the 1980s."
The issue is distance -- an attempt by the USGA to cut back driving distance on the Tour. It's a reaction to the humiliation the USGA suffered when, owing to a burst of cowardice on the part of the erstwhile governing body, driving distance on the Tour soared by a whopping 9% from the mid 1990s until 2003 when it stopped flat at 289 yards.
The logical way to roll back distance would be to reduce the spring like effect on today's drivers and/or to ordain that the fail point in the vital overall distance standard is 10 or 15 yards shorter. The USGA dares do neither because of a fear the changes would be ignored. Golf equipment guys exist to make money, not to make the game nice. They'd go right on making today's equipment. Yes, only the shorter gear would be on sale at the golden triangle of Augusta, Seminole and Cypress Point. But how about Walmart? There would be chaos, the exact opposite of what is the USGA's holy grail - uniformity in the Rules of Golf.
It would be akin to a happening in one of the Shakespeare Henry plays when a braggart swears he can "call spirits from the vasty deep." To which his companion responds "Well, so can I, or so can any man, but will they come when you do call them?"
The prohibition on U grooves is the inspiration of Dick Rugge, the USGA Technical Director. Rugge, an amiable man whose survival bespeaks genuine skill in the Byzantine world of USGA internal politics. The Executive Committee is betting on Rugge. Rugge conducted a massive research project. He lost me when he said he was seeing 5-iron shots played from light rough stopping quicker than the same shots played from fairways.
There would be other measurable changes in a sort of domino affect. The percentage of greens hit in regulation would have to dip because the shots hit into them will be longer. On the other hand, the percentage of fairways hit should go up. As for the newly fearsome rough, the distance to the holes after shots are played from the rough would be longer than in the past because the players no longer can avail themselves of the miracle of U grooves. Finally, the game having been made harder, scores would have to be higher.
Golf World Magazine is performing an excellent public service. They deserve a Pulitzer. Every week they show a horizontal box comparing performances this year with those for the same number of events last year - the last year of U grooves. They have tracked ten events so far, not enough to say definitively that the data is conclusive in a season of 40 odd events. With no claim to skill in math, I nonetheless sense that by mid-year, shortly after the US Open, we will know whether or not the game has been saved.
The Tour's statistical program is now so sophisticated that it reveals how close to the hole the field comes on average from various distances. Moreover, it isolates shots played from the rough. Remember, this is at the heart of banning U-grooves - the belief that players found it relatively easy playing from the rough with U grooved clubs.
So far the opposite is true:
- From 125-150 yards the average is 2 feet 4 inches CLOSER this year.
- From 50 - 125 yards the average is a tiny 7 inches closer this year, meaningless but perhaps not so given the USGA prediction that it was supposed to go the other way quite a bit.
- Finally, there is "scrambling", the percentage of times tour players get down in two from 90 feet to 150 feet. Tour members predicted that this is where the change in grooves would make a difference. There is indeed a difference but it's the wrong way. They are "scrambling" 3.7% more effectively this year.
It is not a surprise that the best players are wrong when it comes to evaluating the performance of equipment. Are you old enough to remember the J Driver, said to offer a frightening distance advantage by many of the game's luminaries, e.g., Nicklaus, Floyd and Norman?
And well do I recall standing next to Mark O'Meara as he hit balls on a driving range using his new clubs with bubbles in the shafts. When Mark came to his senses and reverted to standard shafts he won 2 majors in one season. By the way, those bubbled shafts were the inspiration of Dick Rugge, who was at Taylor Made before lateraling over to the USGA.
The USGA did a massive 2 volume "groove study" in 1987 during the quarrel about grooves with Ping. I sat in as an observer of a deposition of Ping's John Solheim as he said the USGA study had advanced the "industry's" knowledge of groove performance by 10 years.
The main finding of that study was that grooves mattered very little, if at all, in scoring. The maximum effect was that shots played from "light rough" when played by a pitching wedge with U grooves stopped 2 to 3 feet quicker than the same shot with V grooves. Note: that is not the same as saying 2 feet closer to the hole.
Full disclosure commands that I say I was the USGA Executive Director in 1987 although I had nothing to do with the groove study since I have trouble with replacing light bulbs. When asked about the dramatic difference between then and now Rugge says its a different time and that he's got much better equipment.
We'll see. If it should turn out that there is a 6-yard drop in driving distance this year I will propose that there be an equestrian statue of Rugge mounted not too far from the spot where the ashes of my dog were buried. But if it turns out that the ban on U-grooves amounts to nothing after a serious expenditure of time and money it might do well for Rugge to work on his resume.





















Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 09:48 PM
Reader Comments (40)
Also, can anyone (including you, Geoff) elaborate on what the TM Bubble Shaft was trying to achieve from a design and physics perspective? It was an interesting design for sure...but clearly short-lived.
Btw, I'm pretty sure O'Meara won his majors with the Bubble shaft. Not that I completely understood what point that was trying to prove, though...
Maybe this new groove rule has in essence made the game more uniform/consistent from varying grass heights (once the player practices/learns/makes adjustments where needed in club makeup and technique etc) and thus easier?
Seems to me the issue is distance and that's not being addressed. I'm not sure it can be addressed. It could be that we're too far down that road. But it's sure good to be discussing golf issue instead of TMZ issues.
OWGR - It's adopted as a condition of competition - see Appendix I.
Ah, the bubble shaft. Don't you just love these marketing mavens who invent ways to sell clubs?
Grooves can be any shape as long as they conform to the new dimensional specifications. The USGA does not mandate the shape of the groove anywhere in the rules of golf.
-----
Per the USGA website.....
Do square grooves conform? top
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
-----
Please show me where in Appendix 1 it dicatates that U/Square grooves are outlawed. There are clubs that are being manufactured today that have conforming U/Square grooves since they meet the new dimensional requirement set forth by the USGA.
Funny thing is that my proposal related to the ball (akin to the 12 meter rule for yachting) still allows for innovation by the manufacturers. It just makes sure there are tradeoffs.
If you want a ball that goes the max difference, you have to give up feel and spin. If you want spin, you have to give up on feel and distance, etc... The ball at the end of the day have to fit the formula (does not add up to more than "X")
We all know if can be done. We also know that the pros, despite the choice they're given, will pick a certain formula of balls. Hopefully it will just be a ProV1 that flies a shorter distance.
There were many players (myself included) that couldn't generate enough clubhead speed to see any benefit in playing the PRo-V-1X. Players with my club head speed couldn't activate this ball's scientific genius. It's still my opinion that for the very first time at the game's less that one percent skill level we witnessed a continental divide in distance with two very different golf balls being designed specifically for clubhead speed. Distance wasn't always so crucial in that Bombers didn't always reach 550 yard par 5's in two. Beginning in 2003 with the PRO-V-1X the Bombers began reaching every 550 yard par 5 in two, most with 5 irons all the way down to 7 irons. I witnessed it and realized immediately that golf courses could no longer hold a Bomber in check. I forsaw the entire PGA TOUR becoming a tour of nothing but Bombers. In fact, 600 yard par 5's today are being reached in two with driver, hybrids.
Personally, I feel the USGA should roll the balls back to 2002 so that the sport at the professional level can be conducted as a true Championship. What I mean by my statement is that everything shouldn't be predicated on distance. Accuracy use to mean a lot, with players reaching 600 yard par's 5's in two, 200 yard par 3's with 7 irons, the Championship has now lost the shot values that made the sport exciting to watch. It's incredibly easy to hit a 7 iron vs. 4 iron straighter because of more loft. Today the 200 yard par 3's on tour is like having 4 150 yard par 3's on the course, which was never the case with older balls. The dumbing down of the sport at the professional level due to the new distances these X balls will travel has made the sport obsolete. Imagine Major League Baseball moving the outfield wall 50 feet closer to home plate and you'll beging to get a sense about what I'm explaining here.
Going back to balls of 2002 or earlier does not mean we would be going back to wound balata balls, and quite frankly it wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit if we did go back to wound balata golf balls they don't beat up your body like todays hard balls do. It took an enormous amount of skill to play with wound balata golf balls. It's the skill level on the PGA TOUR thats missing today. I don't even enjoy watching golf on TV anymore, due to the golf ball and its one dimensional aspect. JB plays every golf course with the same mentality.
Fred Funk
What do you mean by beating up your body - is it the fact that the newer balls work best with an aggressive swing?
And the answer to anyone who suggests that we are now in a period in which there has been no growth in driver distance; to the extent it is true at all, it is almost assuredly attributable to the fact that there were only modest formulation changes to the various versions of Pro V1 and Pro V1x models.
In addition, ordinary civillians should know that to the extent that tour pros get dialed in with one or another version of the Pro V1, (models from 2005, 06, 07, 08, 09, etc., plus non-retail prototypes), they can play those balls as well, supplied by Titleist with old-production or special-run supplies.
If it isn't "all about the ball," it is assuredly "mostly about the ball," and also drivers, and to the extent that Dick Rugge's "Distance Myths" memo attempts to deny that fact, it really is an illegitimate document.
With respect to a "rollback," Fred, I have always resisted calls to go "back" to any old design or material. Such as going "back" to a 2002 ball, or a balata ball, or a wound ball. At the same time, it might be very helpful to address the fact that modern multilayer urethane-covered balls can spin so little with driver yet produce spin that is particularly usable to touring professionals, making solid-core balls useful to the elites. I don't think a ball rollback should be, or will be, simple. I think it would be very complicated, in fact. But we agree, it is important to do it soon and do it right.
Glad to see Frank H. is still crankin' and holding the USGA accountable.
Roll back the ball(or insert your favorite phrase for it here)...in regards to distance, but ALSO "roll back" the lack of side-spin from lower-lofted clubs...some of the swings we are seeing nowadays from the tee should be causing the ball to end up on another golf course, in my opinion. Palmer was long as hell off the tee, but he had to crank it - andlosing accuracy. Jack, generally making a much more solid strike, could bust it past Palmer, with a smoother swing - thus keeping a higher consistent level of accuracy.
Also - "gear effect" from drivers(or any other game-improvement features) should be used exclusively by amateurs and hacks like me. I know it's a money game out there, and the clubs are currently allowable inside the rules(for some reason) - but I would think a pro would be quasi-embarrased to require the crutch.
Where did I see that article/quote from the 70s(Wadkins, maybe?) - who was talking about how Tour Pro's(at that time) wouldn't be caught dead using some of the game-improvement stuff that was coming out at the time. What happened?
Something just ain't right...I'm think of Yang's hybrid hoist over the tree on 18 at Hazeltine...
Anyway - good discussion...good start to my week, lol.
Cheers,
LK
Just a thought, if the USGA can go back in terms of technology with new groove (corners rounded off, depth of groove limit) rules, why not do the same thing for golf balls? New rules reflecting what can and can't be done to these multi-layer ball construction could in time take 15 to 20 percent off their current distance. Or new rules concerning dimples (how many, how deep or how shallow) which could serve to restore the old balls spin character. If the USGA wants these new grooves to result in shots being played from rough to resemble how shots use to react from rough, then the USGA can certainly find a way to make todays balls play with the old spin character the balata balls behaved with.
When I look down and see my love and joy (Agusta National) covered in rough today I poor myself a double stiff drink, grab a cigar, and head for my rocking chair on the back porch to gaze out at my bird feeders.
And teh fact is that technology, properly employed, can make the gamer better and cheaper and more small-d democratic.
Never forget that a set of hickory shafted clubs were prohibitively expensive for most golfers. And balls in the pre-plastic era were far more expensive than anything we might routinely imagine today. Steel shafts, steel-headed woods, one piece grips, modern epoxy, surlyn balls -- all of those things served to make golf equipment better and cheaper and more usable and repairable for more golfers.
Golf's technology problem now might have something to do with expense; I'd be happy to debate those details, and there is much to be said about that. But as much as anything, golf's technology problem now is the huge gap between elite players, who are rendering classic championship layouts obsolete, and recreational players who aren't.
Yes, you may be right; that imparting requirements that balls have some sort of minimum spin rate might be good, or a design requirement that throttles back elite bombers but leaves recreational players alone mostly. As I said already; a really good ball rollback might not be easy to do. But I think we agree that it is important.
Before I get onto my next drink and totally forget this discussion, let me just say I agree with you Chuck and Mr. Funk too. Let me be the first to say its time, long over due, to bifuricate the rules of golf. Allow the amatuer to play with the game improvement clubs and less spining golf balls which help their huge slices, after all its recreation for them, let them enjoy it. However the sport at the professional level looks anything but professional. Professional golf (like Augusta National) should be restored to the principles and integrity that they were intended to stand for, not this prom queen dressed up in softspikes prancy around impersonating the sport we all cherish. On the one hand I'm pleased that Martha Burke did not become a member at Augusta National, that being said, I'm just as sad to see the current membership being made up of mostly Martha Burkes. It's a good thing I love Scotch as much as I do.
JC
I think the answer to your question is obvious.
Titleist would never stand for it.
Titleist's entire marketing budget -- well, actually its value proposition -- is tied up in telling consumers they can buy the ball the pros play. All their marketing dollars go toward paying pros. Then they trumpet the pros accomplishments in ads that say how many "wins" on tour or in majors Titleist has. Yes, this is their premium ball and it casts a halo effect on the entire brand.
If they don't have tour players endorsing their balls, they can't justify marking them up. Then you have, i don't know, an $800 million company built around...Scott Van Pelt. Doesn't sound like a sound paradigm to me.
Charlie, how would you have two marketing strategies? The point is to use the pros to sell, tell and show the rest of us how and what ball, shoes and clubs to play. If they're using a pros-only competition ball, they can no longer state, imply or advertise that we, too, can use the same ball, at $49 per dozen. The whole foundation that Titleist is built on begins to crack at the foundation.
Silly me.