When you come to think of it that is the secret of most of the great holes all over the world. They all have some kind of a twist. C.B. MACDONALD
Bill Elliott profiles Greg Norman on the eve of his return to Turnberry and talks about the state of his game. There was also this at the end of the piece:
"The return of V-grooves is the greatest move technologically in golf for years. That's gonna teach today's players a huge lesson on the art of understanding a lie, controlling a ball and flight trajectory. Some of these guys have no idea what they're going to be in for," he grinned.
Look how well some of the principals in questioning the groove rule change have lightened up. At least, on Twitter:
After giving a remarkably cogent explanation of the groove rule history--really, not jargon!--Commissioner Tim Finchem was asked this interesting question:
Q. Tim, the only manufacturing company that has objected publicly to the reinstitution of the V-grooves has been a golf ball company so far. Do you have any research indicating that the adoption of the V-grooves will somehow impact the performance of golf balls and therefore affect golf ball companies?
COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: With respect to companies, I've spent a lot of time talking to manufacturers as you might suspect over the last six weeks. They have different opinions among them on different aspects of the rule and equipment and where it should go and all those things.
You know, all I know is that with this change you're not going to be able to spin the ball as much out of the rough. There's some assumptions that players will as a result, maybe, in some instances, look for a ball that spins more generally. That's not necessarily the case in my view, but it's possible.
With respect to the manufacturer that objected, they were a party that recommended the delay. We looked at the request based on whether or not -- because one of the arguments made was there's not enough time to make the transition, and we primarily were looking at it from that perspective.
We also looked at it from the perspective of the timeline and the fairness issue of delaying after individuals and entities and companies had spent time, energy and resources reacting to the timeline. That was a major concern.
But in terms of how it develops, you know, that's something the players will sort out as they pick up the equipment. They go practice with it and then they make the adjustments that they feel like they need to.
Q. So just real quick, nobody presented you with any research indicating that there would be an impact on a specific golf ball product?
COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: No, no.
Hmmm...
This was particularly encouraging, but also in an peculiar roundabout way, an admission that course setup took on Draconian measures in response to technology changes:
Q. One more on grooves. Yesterday you said one of the challenges is the qualifiers and that you may look at possibly different rules for that. USGA and R & A are also looking at that. Are you likely to act in lockstep with them or will you act independently regarding rules on qualifiers? And on a different note, do you see with the new groove being implemented next year that course setups may evolve, possibly pin placements get a little more accessible?
COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: Let me answer the second question first because it's more fun. Yes, we do. We have changed our rough heights this year at a number of golf courses and did some fairly meticulous analysis of what happened when we brought those rough heights down a little bit compared to earlier years, and the reason we did that was to set the stage for now measuring what happens on those same golf courses when we shift grooves.
So this will be a -- you're not going to see us revolutionize our setup the first month next year, but over time we're going to be experimenting with a lot of different ways to set things up because our hope is that this change is going to make the game more interesting to watch from a variety of perspectives, and that would be helpful to us. So we're going to be -- we have more people, more energy, we have this wonderful ShotLink program that tells us everything, so we're going to really, I think, enjoy the process of doing some things differently and playing around with it.
The grooves coverage features several intriguing tidbits.
Mike Stachura writing for GolfDigest.com, writing about industry reaction:
Others in the industry see no cause for alarm, however.
"We're very happy they took the decision to move forward," said Benoit Vincent, chief technical officer at TaylorMade. "The USGA had a pretty set schedule, and we have been working to develop solutions within the new rule, so there was no rational reason for us to want to postpone implementation for a year."
E. Michael Johnson talks to players and gets their take on how this will play out, including this from Ping man Ted Purdy, who is about to take delivery on conforming wedges that Ping didn't want to make:
"The game is hard as it is, to make it harder doesn't make a lot of sense to me," he said. "I think people want to see excitement. We'll evolve and we'll be fine and there will be great scores and great shots being hit. But I don't think this was the will of the majority of the players."
Golf.com's Rob Sauerhaft reminds us all that this will have little impact on the everyday game for some time.
How will the rule affect amateur and "casual" golfers? First, equipment companies can continue to sell current models with U-grooves through the end of 2010. Beyond that, the new regulation on conforming grooves will take effect for high-level amateurs in 2014 and for "casual" players in 2024.
That didn't stop Jeff Rude from complaining that this rule change is cruel to the average golfer. They're taking away their Oxycontin! (In 2024.)
If the PGA Tour wants to have its players use smaller-groove irons and wedges, fine. But leave the recreational golfer alone.
Isn’t the game hard and long enough? We’re going to make it harder for the masses in a few years (elite amateurs in 2014, the rest in 2024)? Doesn’t golf already have a difficult time keeping recreational players in the game? Isn’t the game hurting in most corners?
The theory is that reduction of the size of the current U-grooves and the sharpness of their edges would make playing from rough more difficult and, in turn, put a greater premium on driving accuracy and shotmaking.
That’s fine for the Tour, but not for you and me. We play for enjoyment (and today’s equipment makes the game more enjoyable than ever for the garden-variety amateur).
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...
Not the cleanest transcript ever, but you get the idea. Tiger Woods at Congressional, asked about the groove change going ahead in 2010:
TIGER WOODS: I think it's great. We've had plenty of time to make our adjustments. We've known for over a couple years now what this decision was going to be, when it was going to come down, and we've had plenty of time to make our adjustments.
All the companies have been testing and getting ready for this, and the guys will make the changes. Most of the guys play with big groups brought their irons. Only new groups they usually have use their sand wedges. But guys will make their changes, their adjustments.
It'll be interesting seeing guys catching flyers and not being able to spin the ball back out of the rough. Their decision is how they play par-5s whether they will they try and drive drivable par 4s now. Short-siding yourself is obviously going to pay a little more of a price, and you know, how many more 64-degree wedges you're going to see with the balls being as firm as they are. Are guys going to start going to a spinner ball.
Stewart Cink files this longer Tweet on the grooves issue.
Steve Elling on the PGA Tour's Policy Board Tim Finchem's groove call:
It will be interesting hearing the four players who have seats on the board explain what happened at the meeting, but at minimum, it removed them from a potentially uncomfortable situation – the players have endorsement deals with manufacturers, which might have created a conflict of interest.
Boy they work fast up there in Fairhaven. Hot off the presses:
Acushnet Statement re: U.S. PGA Tour Groove Decision
The Acushnet Company is disappointed that the U.S. PGA Tour has decided to adopt the Condition of Competition for the new groove rule effective January 1, 2010.
For the past several months we have communicated with the USGA, the R&A and various worldwide professional tours, our support for aligning adoption of the Condition of Competition with January 1, 2011, the date that manufacturers are required to begin shipping products with the new groove configuration. We believe that alignment of those dates is in the best interest of the professional tours, consumers, retailers and manufacturers. Below are some of the factors that we believe support our position.
Although Acushnet incorporated a new conforming groove configuration into its irons in 2007, we elected to wait to convert our wedges until after the USGA/R&A took final action on the groove proposal. Once the new groove dimensions were finalized, in the rule as adopted in August 2008, we developed a new groove for wedges and began tour player testing in March 2009. We have since tested a significant number of tour players comparing the current and the new groove configurations.
Our test results are consistent with testing conducted by the USGA/R&A that revealed a spin rate reduction of between 30% and 50% for full shots out of the rough. However, our testing also revealed significant changes in ball launch angle, ball trajectory, angle of descent and roll out on the green. The testing also revealed significant differences in performance depending on player club head speed and short game technique. Player reaction to what they saw was dramatic. They were caught off guard by the magnitude of the performance difference and expressed concern about the extent of the transition process.
Momentary pause here to run for my Kleenex box. Continue...
We believe, and players have confirmed, that the conversion process will not be a simple exchange of existing wedges with new grooves. The conversion process may involve different wedge designs and lofts, different shot technique, different golf balls and different set configuration (including drivers). These types of changes are iterative and take time. They also require significant support from players and equipment manufacturers. There are approximately 1,500 exempt tour players worldwide. We don’t believe that this extensive transition process will begin in earnest until late in 2009, when manufacturer tour support is almost non existent. That is particularly true for tours outside of the United States.
The groove rule change is the first time in the history of contemporary competitive golf that equipment performance has been rolled back. Making a change of this precedential significance requires that the conversion process be conducted in a thorough, deliberate manner taking the interests of all constituencies into account. Regardless of how much research and thought went into the development of the rule change, as with any significant change, there are unforeseen issues and complexity, particularly at the point of implementation and adoption. There is no way to predict many of these issues and they only surface during the actual conversion process, as described above. While no one is to blame for these circumstances, the major logistical issues of implementation still need to be taken into account.
Hey, maybe this will force more guys to show up at Kapalua!
One of the most significant consequences of this equipment roll back is that not aligning adoption of the Condition of Competition with the manufacturer sell by date creates a bifurcation between the equipment that the Tours are using and the equipment consumers have available in the market place. That disconnect is also unprecedented. Our research indicates that the majority of retailers and consumers only have an interest in product with the new groove configuration if product with current grooves is not available. On the current schedule that is January 1, 2011. We believe that alignment of these dates to January 1, 2011 is critical as it allows for a thoughtful, orderly and comprehensive implementation of the proposed new grooves for all parties. Non-alignment is not in the best interests of the game of golf and all of its constituencies.
Now that the USPGA Tour has voted to continue with a January 1, 2010 adoption (and we expect all professional tours to follow their lead), we will, as promised all along, make the effort to service all worldwide professional players as best we can. Our irons currently conform to the new rule and we will begin distribution of new wedge product to the professional tours shortly. However, the decision to adopt the Condition of Competition effective January 1, 2010 does not diminish or alter the challenges described above.
...they are going ahead with the 2010 "condition of competition." Victory for USGA, Finchem, rough mowers. Finchem conference call highlights:
"full and thorough discussion on delaying, reaffirmation of general support for rule, some issues with the enacting date"
"the board finished discussion by continuing the history policy of using condition of competition, our intention to move ahead January 1, 2010"
"full court press" to make sure every player is paying attention to what he has to do, working with his manufacturer, to be prepared
"some challenges"
"Delaying at this point in time was not in our overall best interest"
"continues to be wide support for rule itself"
Ferguson asks: why in best overall interest? Finchem: "late in the process"
"Board did not take action" according to Finchem. Means no vote was taken, left up to the Commissioner.
Here's the transcript.
So nice to see the manufacturers agreeing on something. Just a little late, no?
PING Chairman & CEO John Solheim calls for new groove rule to be abandoned, not delayed
June 29, 2009; Phoenix Arizona: PING Chairman & CEO John Solheim, who has adamantly opposed the USGA and R&A New Groove Rule since first proposed February 27, 2007, released the following statement today from the company’s Phoenix, Arizona headquarters:
"The new groove rule harms the game and golfers and should be dropped. The recent uproar about it from PGA Tour players demonstrates this fact,” said Solheim. “However, the PGA Tour's proposal to delay implementing the rule is not a solution. You can't turn a bad idea into a good one by waiting an extra year to adopt it. We hope everyone who cares about the future of this game keeps that simple concept in mind."
A summary of Solheim’s concerns that were shared with the USGA and R&A since the New Groove Rule was proposed is attached.
Here goes...bandwith is cheap!
SUMMARY OF PING’S OPPOSITION TO THE NEW GROOVE RULE
Set forth below is a summary of some of the points PING made to the USGA and the R&A during the time they were evaluating whether to adopt the new groove rule:
1. It is simply wrong to place the potentially biased concerns of a small number of Tour professionals above the needs of tens of millions of amateurs. Why are amateurs being needlessly harmed and told to reach into their pockets to pay for an alleged problem that the USGA believes applies to just the PGA Tour? The PGA Tour has undergone tremendous economic growth and success over the past decades, in concert with golf club innovation. Innovation is one of the oldest and most important traditions of golf. Professionals who get their clubs for free should not be causing the rulemaking bodies to force amateurs to buy new clubs.
Well of course we know that's totally misleading, but continues...
2. Once the rulemaking bodies approve a golf club, it should remain approved.
Golf needs respected and responsible rule makers. Respect is earned -- and it can easily be lost. Tens of millions of golfers purchased hundreds of millions of irons and wedges based on the fact that the rulemaking bodies said these clubs conformed to the rules. It simply is not fair to say to the golfing public, "You know those clubs you bought, the ones we said conformed to the rules? Well, we changed our mind. Sorry about that, and you will need to get some new ones." This not only harms amateur golfers, but it damages the respect many have for the USGA and the R&A.
Golfers respect the USGA and R&A?
3. The skill of driving accuracy continues to be richly rewarded. In proposing this roll back of the Rules, the USGA stated: "The skill of driving accurately has become a much less important factor in achieving success while playing [on the PGA Tour] than it used to be...." That statement is not correct. The data from recent US Opens and from
PGA Tour events (including its improved ShotLink data - which was ignored by the USGA) establishes that there remains a significant penalty from landing in the rough. In fact, the USGA is able to define, and obtain, the level of penalty ("Cost of Rough") it desires through its course set-up. Any tournament is free to do the same. ShotLink data also establishes that accurate drives at PGA Tour events continue to result in the ball ending up much closer to the hole after the second shot (a true measure of an accurate shot). In short, there continues to be a significant penalty from hitting into the rough, even for the best players in the world.
I'm so glad Max Behr isn't alive to read this.
4. In targeting grooves, the rulemaking bodies ignored numerous changes that likely impacted the game over the past 30 years. It is nearly impossible to conclude that a single variable (grooves) caused any observed changes to the game at the PGA Tour level over the past twenty five years. To attempt to do so requires that you ignore all of the other changes to the game since 1984 (the year square grooves were allowed), including the following: course conditioning changes, driver improvements (such as large-headed drivers made with exotic materials), shaft improvements, improved golf balls and golf ball cover materials, improved agronomy, increased athleticism, improved player conditioning, improved player training aids, launch angle fitting and even improved coaching. As an example, tremendous course-conditioning changes have occurred on the PGA Tour since the 1970's. According to historical PGA Tour Course Conditioning Guidelines, since the 1970's the length of the primary rough has been reduced by as much as 60%. The height of the intermediate rough (also described as the first cut), is now as short as some fairways used to be. The grass on the fairways & greens is also shorter. If the USGA/R&A are concerned whether PGA Tour pros find it too easy to hit out of the rough, why didn't they focus on changes to the PGA Tour's course set-up guidelines? If the PGA Tour's set-up guidelines were reviewed, why weren't they mentioned in any of the reports? It is unfair to make amateurs buy new clubs, just so PGA Tour pros can continue to play courses without the deeper roughs yesterday's pros were forced to tackle.
Oh that's good stuff there. Roughs are down! The boys have it easy. Sadly, that might actually click with some.
5. The "money list/driving accuracy" rank correlation analysis cited by the USGA to justify its change in grooves is fundamentally flawed. The downward pattern in this correlation cannot be tied to the introduction or increased use of square grooved irons. We believe it is more closely linked to PGA Tour player behavior than the introduction of any particular equipment innovation. We undertook extensive statistical analysis of publicly available PGA Tour data. We quickly discovered the number of tournaments played annually by the top 10 money earners has been gradually decreasing since about the mid-1990’s. In fact, the number of PGA Tour events with 3 or more of the top 10 money earners in the field has dramatically decreased since the 1980's. The decreasing trend in participation by the top money earners at PGA Tour Events closely mirrors the decreasing trend in the money list/driving accuracy rank correlations, and could be the cause of it. All of this was demonstrated, graphically and otherwise, in my letters to the USGA.
Now that is interesting.
6. The USGA has not demonstrated that any change in any PGA Tour statistic is due to grooves. If the rule making bodies believe that grooves are wreaking havoc on the PGA Tour, why is it that among the hundreds of statistics kept by the PGA Tour, no one has ever deemed it worthwhile to identify the specific grooves each individual PGA Tour Pro is using in his irons and wedges. If grooves truly are a problem, it seems obvious that someone would gather and analyze this easily obtainable data before telling tens of millions of golfers the USGA is reversing its prior approval of hundreds of millions of golf clubs. The failure to do so suggests there may be something else going on here.
Yeah the ball flies too far!
7. What happens to hundreds of millions of "Used" golf clubs - which have always been an important asset in golf. I believe it is important to many golfers, particularly PING customers, that their used clubs maintain a great trade-in value, often for twenty or more years. I am concerned that declaring that hundreds of millions of previously approved clubs will later be non-conforming will impact the resale value of those clubs. It is wrong to diminish the value of these previously approved clubs purchased by hardworking men and women simply because a few Tour pros (who get their clubs for free) seem to complain that "golfers today have it too easy." I do not know of a single golfer who quit playing the game because "it became too easy." This new rule will also harm the tradition of passing clubs to children and grandchildren. Used clubs are also an affordable way for many beginners to give the game a try. These concerns may not resonate with some, but they mean a lot to many who love this game and want to pass the passion for golf on to the next generation. Again, are we throwing all of that away simply so the PGA Tour can keep its rough shorter than it used to be?
Hey, I still have a set of Ping Eye2's in the closet John. Care to buy them from me?
Just reading between the lines here, but I'd say someone is pretty confident that he has the votes to uphold the new groove condition of competition. Otherwise, why schedule a highly unusual media teleconference to talk about just another policy board meeting?
TELECONFERENCE:
PGA TOUR Commissioner Tim Finchem, Policy Board update
Ponte Vedra Beach, FL June 29, 2009
Members of the media are invited to take part in a teleconference with PGA TOUR Commissioner Tim Finchem on Tuesday, June 30, during which he will provide an update from that morning’s PGA TOUR Policy Board meeting.
Date:
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Time:
12 p.m. (Eastern Time)
...assuming you like tales of big egos, big money and big power plays.
The PGA Tour Policy Board votes Tuesday whether to adopt the 2010 condition of competition requiring the use of new grooves. As Alex Miceli reported Friday, three of four player votes are likely going to say no to adopting the condition for January play.
That means in order to uphold the PGA Tour's original stance in support of the USGA/R&A groove spec change, the five non-player policy board reps would have to overrule the player directors. Most insiders believe this has never occurred in the history of the policy board.
Because it's Congressional week and I try not to contemplate the idea of watching golf played there, let's consider the possible votes and ensuing fallout should the policy board postpone the implementation until 2011:
If the board adopts the condition of the competition, it's a clear victory for Finchem, the USGA, R&A and fans of the flyer lie. Consider how many golf courses and tournaments were already improved this year by having less rough in anticipation of the rule change (along with common sense kicking in). More of that starting in 2010 is good for the PGA Tour, even better if the less-rough mentality filters down to the everyday game.
If you are in favor of regulating distance for the safety, function and interest of golf architecture, you have to love the equipment rollback precedent set by the groove rule change. But big money is at stake here and I'd be shocked if certain manufacturers go quietly.
At least after Tuesday night we'll know who the most powerful man in golf is.
John Huggan on the possibility that the PGA Tour won't adopt the groove rule change:
When it comes to the rules, the book says it is the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews and the United States Golf Association. But you have to wonder sometimes.
Take the recent news that the PGA Tour, urged on by equipment manufacturers, is unlikely to adopt the new regulations for grooves on wedges come 1 January. The likes of Titleist, TaylorMade and Callaway are claiming they can't make clubs and balls the leading players will be happy with in time to meet the deadline. Aye right.
Verdict: Meet golf's real supremo, Wally Uihlein, chairman and CEO of Titleist.
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!
Geoff Shackelford is a Senior Writer for Golfweek magazine, a weekly contributor to Golf Channel's Morning
Copyright © 2022, Geoff Shackelford. All rights reserved.
