Mac Agrees With USGA: The Grooves Must Go!

The USGA Executive Committee will be comforted to know that Mac O'Grady wholeheartedly agrees that V-grooves must be returned to stop the flogging we've seen a recent majors.

The Detroit News' Krysten Oliphant turned on her tape recorder and let Mac do this thing after Monday's Buick Open qualifying. First, on Tiger's driving and grooves.

"When Nicklaus and Palmer played, when (Ben) Hogan played and Sam Snead played, on a scale of zero to 10, they were a nine-plus," he said. "Tiger Woods is not even a one-plus."

O'Grady said technology is the reason for players' success today. A change in the drivers' grooves from a V shape to a box shape allows golfers to hit the ball farther with more spin.

When in the rough, players go straight for the hole instead of just trying to reach the green. This, he said, has ruined golf.

"The reason why (Woods) can hit it on the green is because he has square grooves," he said.

"He doesn't have that, he's dead. He cannot do it -- it's impossible. For him to go after Nicklaus' records is cheating. This is like steroids."

Mac, do you really think that Tiger would have approached Augusta or Oakmont differently this year had his grooves been V-shaped? Maybe he wisely lays up on 15 at Augusta Sunday(he was in the second cut, right?)? Maybe.

Anyway, Mac then talks about the ball.

"Balls used to have what he called a concentric arc dimple configuration, meaning their indentions were in a circular shape and each dimple was the same size, allowing for even dispersion of air across them. Now dimple sizes and positions vary, eliminating the balls' curve.

"It allows all these guys to come into the game that ordinarily couldn't do it," O'Grady said.

"This ball is designed for the 30-handicap. It's not designed for the pro tour. The 30-handicapper hits the ball and it goes up to the apex, it comes down straight. It doesn't slice. So when the Tour pro gets it, it's robbery. It's not fair."

And he'll be glad to know he shares this opinion with his good buddy, Deane Beman:

He said there should be a special ball for PGA Tour players with the concentric arc dimple pattern, which he said showed who had natural ability and who did not.

"The degree of athleticism has changed," he wrote in notes he took during qualifying. "What was humanly impossible is now technologically possible."

Come admit it, no matter what you think of Mac, you have to love his honesty...

"I still love the game," he said.

"I don't enjoy the technology because what's happening is these kids now are shooting 63s, 62s. What Michelle Wie is doing is not humanly possible. It's technologically possible because the balls go too straight, they go too far."

O'Grady said in the Champions Tour, what he called former "powderpuff" players such as Jay Haas, are defeating "dinosaur guys who had the best technique."

"All those big players, they can't say anything because they're being paid by the manufacturers (for sponsorship). But they know it's wrong. This is the worst dark chapter in the history of professional golf with this technology.

"Steroids (are) not in the athletes today -- (they're) in the balls and the drivers. Guys don't have to hit it far. The equipment is going to do it for them."

"It’s been made worse by technologically advanced golf equipment that makes golf balls go farther — and farther sideway"

The New York Times' Bill Pennington officially becomes a member of the technophobic, liberal biased, anti-corporate bottom line agenda writers of America with this (front page!) piece on increased safety issues at golf course residential communities.

 The intersection of errant golf shots and private property is not a new phenomenon. But with new gear that enables average golfers to hit a ball 250 yards, and with golf communities sprouting nationwide — 70 percent of new courses include housing — it is becoming an increasingly prominent problem. Most homes built near this country’s 16,000 golf courses may not be in the cross hairs of slicing duffers, but thousands are.

“It’s not only an ongoing problem, it’s been made worse by technologically advanced golf equipment that makes golf balls go farther — and farther sideways,” said David Mulvihill, a managing director at the Urban Land Institute, who has studied golf course development.

“So homes that have been on a golf course for decades without incident are suddenly in the path of guys whacking giant-headed drivers. The golf course designers are trying to adjust with wider fairway corridors, but because of liability issues, no one is willing to put on paper what the acceptable setbacks are.”

But don't worry, with V-grooves on the way, all will be well! 

"It's one of the most irrelevant rules ever proposed in golf."

Thanks to reader Sean for catching John Davis's excellent story on the U-groove rule change proposed by the USGA.

In a joint proposal with the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, U-grooves wouldn't be banned, but clubs would have specifications so they performed like V-shaped grooves, which were the standard before U-grooves were approved.

"Does that mean I would have to buy new clubs?" Kevin Largent of Scottsdale said before a golf round last week. "I just got these."

The answer is yes, although not right away. If adopted, the rules would take effect for high-level competition in 2009 and for all new equipment in 2010. Recreational golfers would have a 10-year grace period in which they can use clubs that currently conform.

I wonder how many golfers actually know this?

Tour pros have had mixed reaction to the proposal, but most club manufacturers are strongly opposed, saying it not only would cost them millions of dollars to meet the specifications but also would be costly for golfers.

Oh come on.

"More than 100 million clubs that are being played around the world would be non-conforming. That's a lot of clubs," said John A. Solheim, president and CEO of Ping. "I'm totally opposed to this thing."

An open comment period runs through Aug. 1, during which anyone can send comments to the USGA about the proposal. In recent years, equipment proposals have been "tweaked," but the end result has been a new rule in each case.

If approved, it would mark the first rollback in equipment since the move to a lighter ball in 1931.

And why is it again the ball can't be rolled back? That's easier to replace than a set of irons.

Benoit Vincent, chief technical officer for TaylorMade, thinks the proposal is "disconnected."

"Their point is that golfers aren't concerned about driving accuracy," Vincent said. "How do they control that? By regulating the spin of the ball on shots out of the rough?

"The probability that this rule is going to solve the problem is very low."

Vincent thinks it unfair that clubmakers and regular golfers would pay a steep price simply because of shots being executed by highly skilled tour pros. He estimates that golfers would pay 10 percent more for the new clubs.

"In order to meet those specifications would cost millions of dollars," he said. "This rule is insignificant to the vast majority of golfers in the world except that they would have to change their equipment. It's one of the most irrelevant rules ever proposed in golf."

This argument looks particularly silly after Oakmont:

Rugge doubts that the proposed changes would have much change on the tour's money list. "Tiger Woods is still going to be the best," he said. "We would expect to see some changes, but these guys are so good, they would adapt their games perhaps to focus more on staying in the fairway."

Right, because they are aiming at the rough. Kind of hard not to when the fairways are 22 yards wide. 

"Improved aerodynamic efficiency, resulting in increased flight distance for golfers of all swing speeds"

Thanks to reader Kevin for noticing David Dawsey's latest golf patent post, this one on a new ball from Titleist:

A golf ball is provided that has improved aerodynamic efficiency, resulting in increased flight distance for golfers of all swing speeds, and more particularly for golfers possessing very high swing speeds, such as those who can launch the balls at an initial speed greater than 160 miles per hour and more particularly at initial ball speed of about 170 miles per hour or higher. The golf ball of the present invention combines lower dimple count with multiple dimple sizes to provide higher dimple coverage and improved aerodynamic characteristics.

Noncomforming Driver: COR v. Grooves

In Chris Millard's Golf World cover story, the banning of U-grooves comes up.

You remember that right?

The guys are bombing it out there insane distances because the USGA believes the guys think they can spin it out of the light rough with today's grooves better than they can from the fairway (based on a field study of nine players). And because the drive distances are so eye-opening, the USGA wants to stop this embarrassing practice that makes what is left of today's fairways less meaningful.

By 2009, anyone wanting to play a competitive event under USGA rules will have to buy new clubs with conforming grooves.

Here's what USGA President Walter Driver tells Millard:

Oddly, the impetus for the grooves proposal was the state of play on tour, a very small but highly visible slice of the American golf community. "The fact that really stimulated this," said Driver, "is that during the last several years there is no correlation at all between fairways hit and money won on the PGA Tour. Clearly, you can hit it anywhere. Part of that is the grooves. We think we can demand more skill [by] making you drive the ball in play."

Now because of this, a whole bunch of people are going to have to go out and replace their clubs (which is why other than Ping, the reaction from the equipment industry has been and will continue to be concerned silence).

Yet, earlier in the story, Millard looks at the COR debate and Driver explains why the USGA rolled over:

If the view that the USGA should have fought to the death on COR can be described as idealistic, Driver's view is correspondingly pragmatic. He explains that the clubs in question were manufactured and bought in good faith and had earned the USGA's seal of approval. If the USGA had gone back even further on COR, he says, "I don't know whether we would have had the resources to buy all those clubs or to compensate the manufacturers for relying on the letters that we sent out.

So my question for Walter is, why aren't you offering to buy back all of these u-grooved irons that were manufactured and bought in good faith and had earned the USGA's seal of approval?

I'm A Stupid Incompetent Liar Who Deserves To Be Arrested!

It seems Gouge of the tag comedy team didn't take too well to having his truth-stretching pointed out. So he fires back with a rationalization/spin/name calling beauty that truly is the work of a master who enjoys digging a deeper ditch. Keep the entertainment coming Gorge, though I still stay this one will never be topped!

GOUGE: Because Geoff Shackelford deserves to be arrested for incompetence, a clarification: When I mentioned the other day that the Overall Distance Standard had not changed, I was technically incorrect.

You do have to love the irony of being technically incorrect on a issue related to technology. Oh but wait, he really wasn't! In his own mind!

In truth, it has gotten shorter. In 2003, the USGA changed the equipment used for its golf ball test and the ODS. It also changed the swing speed. Those changes (from 109 mph swingspeed to 120 mph and from a wooden driver to a titanium driver with a coefficient of restitution at the USGA limit) did lead to an increase in the yardage allowed by the ODS, from 296.8 to 320. But that yardage is in fact shorter if you realize that the 11 mph increase in swing speed, plus the increase in COR from .77 of a wood driver to .822 in a titanium driver conservatively account for 30 yards of distance, but the ODS has only increased 23.2 yards. No less an authority than  Frank Thomas acknowledges the rule is a form of control.Maybe not the best. But again, look at numbers: Driving distance is down 4.4 yards from where it was a year ago. If that's not a big deal to you, again, I ask you if driving distance were up 4.4 yards, wouldn't there be outrage. Average courses aren't being ripped up because all us double digit handicappers are making them obsolete with our 225-yard tee shots. But go ahead and believe Shackelford. Why research the truth when you can continue to promote a lie. And for those keeping records, my handicap index has improved. But it still allowed me to shoot 103 yesterday.

Hey, where's Bomb to come in with a few of those Catskills-worthy one-liners?

"The ball is the culprit"

Thanks to reader John for spotting this Gary D'Amato column that I do believe, Wally, warrants a phone call to brother Fletcher to ask, "what gives?"

Then came titanium-headed drivers with lightweight graphite shafts and, most damaging to Pavin, golf balls that launched higher and spun less. Titleist stopped making its high-spin 384 ball after the 1995 season.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Pavin stopped winning.

"The ball is the culprit," he said. "The (new) balls don't spin as much, so therefore they won't curve as much. I had to try to adapt to that and I had a hard time adapting. I'm still working on it.

"Hitting the ball higher, which these balls allow you to do without them curving as much, is a lot of work for me. My bread and butter is a hard little fade and to put the ball up in the air and launch it is a scary thing for me. I'll be getting used to that the rest of my life, probably."

I do feel privileged to have been able to witness Pavin curving the ball around Riviera in the mid-90s.

Just when golfers such as Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson started mashing balls out of sight with the new equipment, Pavin went into a tailspin. Sure, he gained a few yards off the tee, but he's still 185th and last on the PGA Tour in average driving distance (257.7 yards) and the gap between him and the bombers has widened while his shot-making skills have been negated.

But look how the game has grown, how rounds bog down while people wait to drive short par-4s and how much money golf course contractors make changing designs!

"The Overall Distance Standard is essentially the same"

I hate to even point these posts out by Banana and Gap over at GolfDigest.com, but when you insist on ignoring the costs of a technology race acknowledged by virtually every rational person of significance in the game, you do have to wonder.

The latest blog post is in response to Jack Nicklaus's recent remarks to ESPN.com's Gene Wojciechowski:

GOUGE: Sometimes you have an urge to tell someone to shut the frig up. What would we fix about the equipment, precisely, Jack? Reduce clubhead size? Wouldn't get it done because all my understanding of golf club engineering suggests that a smaller clubhead wouldn't revert to pre-1995 performance levels in terms of on-center hit performance. In other words, they wouldn't make drivers less hot than they currently are with one major exception. They'd be less hot for us choppers who hit it all over the face. Roll the ball back? To what, precisely? The Overall Distance Standard is essentially the same, updated based on clubhead speed and test driver specifications since it was established 30 years ago.

Essentially the same? Uh, 296.8 to 320 yards? Sort of like how Gouge (aka Mike Stachura) sports a handicap on the blog of 13.2 but is actually a 10.6, down from 12.7 a year ago.  I guess all numbers are fudgable!

Are balls better than they were 30 years ago? But it's not because the longest balls are going longer, it's because the longest balls can be used to hit finesse shots around the green. Thirty years ago those long balls couldn't do that. There is no question that a lot of rancor could have been avoided if the USGA had not allowed metal drivers. But there is no evidence to suggest the game has been critically damaged by technology. Are some courses too short for elite competitions? Sure. Big deal.

Remember, this is the same guy who said he wouldn't shed any tears if Winged Foot, Augusta and St. Andrews were left behind so that grown men can continue to shop unfettered by regulation.

Is the gap between pro and amateur too friggin' big, to paraphrase Nicklaus? Is the gap between beer league softball and Major League Baseball too big? Hasn't killed participation. Is the gap between Bobby Flay and me grilling turkey burgers on my Char-Broil in the backyard too big? I still do it, and I'm even inspired by him.

Yeah, but you aren't ripping up your backyard every summer to install a new barbeque to keep up with Bobby Flay either!

Are tour players crazy better and super longer than I'll ever be? Sure. But I can still par a hole that they might someday bogey. That's the game. And I'll tell you this: I'm certainly longer than I was 15 years ago. Which makes me no different than Fred Funk. We're playing the same game. They're just better than I am.

It's all about ME and my right to shop!

For Immediate Release, Vol. 3,098

This sounds like a nice tradeout with equipment manufacturers doozy... 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 15, 2007

The PGA TOUR Brings You the Science of Golf, Presented by IBM
2-Part CBS Special Shares How Modern Technology Has Impacted the Game of Golf

PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FL – A new two-part special, produced by PGA TOUR Productions in association with CBS Sports, will explore and explain the critical role science plays in the modern game of golf. Science of Golf, Presented by IBM will take you from the high-tech world of building equipment, to the unique teaching methods used by the game’s greatest teachers, to the importance of physical fitness during two one-hour programs.

Produced in High Definition, the Science of Golf, Presented by IBM will air Saturday, May 19^th from 2-3 p.m. and on Sunday, May 27^th from 2-3 p.m. on CBS. Part one of the series, Science of Golf – Power Game will put the full golf swing under the microscope. Utilizing computer animations as well as interviews from TOUR players, golf teachers and fitness instructors, you’ll see how the human body works in unison to complete the golf swing.

Eighty percent of the strokes golfers lose to par are determined by their play within 100 yards of the green. Unlike the power game, the short game has many more intricate components and variables which will cause golfers to fail. Part two of the series, Science of Golf – Short Game will delve into the force of the swing, impact of ball position and getting the ball to stop suddenly. How the body and mind work in unison to perform under pressure as well as the nuances which go into improving your short game will be examined.

“Shot exclusively in High Definition, the Science of Golf two-part series will show how the best players on the PGA TOUR utilize cutting edge technology to elevate their game to the highest level,” said Gil Kerr, Senior Vice President of Broadcasting, Programming & Production for the PGA TOUR. “This has never been done before.

And here's why...

“We went inside the laboratories of virtually every major golf equipment manufacturer,” Kerr continued. “We sat down with the best swing coaches in the game today – including Butch Harmon, Hank Haney, David Leadbetter, Jim McClean, Jim Flick and Dave Pelz – and we have combined this with the best of the PGA TOUR archives and never before seen super slow motion footage to capture how the best players in the game utilize science and technology on and off the course. Anyone who wants to understand how the science of the game can help you add power off the tee, attack the pin or improve your short game, will really enjoy these two specials on CBS.”

A video preview of Science of Golf, Presented by IBM is available at http://www.pgatour.com/tv-times/

Oh yeah, the PGA Tour will take a stand on equipment regulation! 

"They couldn't be friggin' further apart"

Jack Nicklaus is now using friggin' while talking about equipment and the governing bodies, this time to ESPN.com's Gene Wojciechowski:

Nicklaus said he thinks Tour commissioner Tim Finchem has done "a great job." So I tell him he's been named Golf Czar and can change anything in the sport.

"Equipment," he said. "That would be one thing I would do. I would fix the friggin' equipment."

The problem is this: The difference between what a pro can do with the latest club technology compared to what an amateur can do with it continues to grow wider. Unless golf's two ruling bodies can figure out a way to even things up (a standardized golf ball?), the pros will continue to make courses obsolete and create a bigger disconnect with the amateur players.

"The whole idea of the R&A and the USGA is to try to play the same equipment for the average golfer and the pro, and they couldn't be friggin' further apart," Nicklaus said.

Slow Play Claiming More Victims?

Admittedly, I take some perverse pleasure in seeing how slow play is about to claim more victims, even though the problem is not entirely the fault of the players.

Still, as Doug Ferguson reports, the tepid pace of play on the PGA Tour may force a cut in the number of players teeing it up on the weekend check.

Now, the PGA Tour again is looking at changing the longtime policy that the top 70 and ties make the cut. Several alternatives were discussed last week by the Player Advisory Council, and it likely will come up at the tour policy board meeting at the end of the month.

Among the options:

-Top 60 players and ties.

-Top 65 players and ties.

-The nearest number to 70 players.

-Top 70 and ties, but if the number goes over 78, revert to nearest to 70.

-Top 70 and ties make the cut on Friday, and another cut on Saturday for top 70 and ties.

And your buried lede of the week...

One reason the cut policy is under review is to cope with pace of play. When a large number of players make the cut and bad weather is in the forecast, officials have little choice but to play in threesomes off both tees. That can really become a problem on the West Coast, where tournaments typically end at 3 p.m. for network television.

I wish Tiger had taken a slightly different stand...

Tiger Woods said he would favour top 60 and ties, no exceptions.

"Play better," he said. "Either you play better or you don't."

Or play faster? Or setup courses with a little less rough, fewer 2-paces-from-the-edge-holes and maybe the players stand a chance of picking up the pace?

Oh and do something with the ball so that the entire field can't reach every par-5 in two.

Emailing With Retief

James Corrigan e-interviews Retief Goosen and the chat is surprisingly engaging. Maybe Retief should conduct his post round Q&A's on a laptop in a chat room?

On the distance issue...

There is a growing argument about the ball travelling too far, turning courses into "pitch-and-putts" and forcing the authorities to lengthen and "trick up" layouts. What should be done about it?

People always go on about the equipment and the new balls, but I think 60 per cent of the reason for players hitting it so far is down to them being fitter and stronger. It's become an athlete's sport. It's not just sitting at the bar and going out to play any more; it's regular trips to the gym and protein milkshakes. No more beer. Even the caddies are working out. There's fitness trainers and physios everywhere. It's been an amazing transformation.

Only 60 percent? What about the 40 Retief!? 

I know which percentage is easier to change. 

"Production Error"

Golf Digest's Brittle and Grape report that Callaway joins Nike with a non-conforming driver.

"DVD of the 2007 Masters could, and should, be marketed as a 100% guaranteed cure for insomnia."

Sunday on The Scotsman's Scotland on Sunday's John Huggan notices a trend since 1997: majors gone awry. Seven "dodgy" majors to be exact. Which he revisits in detail.

Ever since the greatest golfer the world has seen annexed his first major title at Augusta in 1997 - blitzing the field by 12 strokes and wedging seemingly every approach on to what used to be distant greens - those in charge of the four most important events seem to have engaged in an unofficial contest to host the daftest Grand Slam event in history.

Unofficially at least, they call it "Tiger-proofing". I call it golf's so-called administrators attempting to disguise their incompetence over the shameful non-regulation of the modern ball.

You know I've suggested it many times, but Huggan gets the credit for actually coming out and saying it.

And bad news for the "so-called administrators." More and more people are making the connection between extreme setups and faulty equipment regulation. And that's before I they even hear me ramble on!

Most were consciously ruined in order to deflect attention away from the men who were 'asleep at the wheel', when they should have been paying closer attention to the dangerous and unlit technological road that golf was travelling. The rest were merely the playthings of those who take a one-dimensional delight in watching the best players suffer.

And so, golf at the very highest level is today too often a pedestrian and penal game designed to punish even the slightest indiscretion. Forget the spectacular and interesting prospect of watching a skilled practitioner attempt a risky recovery shot. They are long gone. Veer from the increasingly straight and narrow fairways, and the only option available is more than likely the chip back into play: penalty one stroke.

How tedious. Tennis anyone?

"Zach Saves The Game"

Bob Verdi in his post-Masters Golf World column:

Well, you probably won’t hear about Augusta National making additional land purchases anytime soon so as to elongate some of its 18 holes. They needn’t bring in more trees, either, and the membership likely will postpone discussion about instituting a uniform Masters ball. Last week’s tournament tended to allay concerns about rampant golf technology, not to mention global warming, just as thoroughly as Zach Johnson chloroformed parties throughout distant parts of the world.

And Booger and Google, blogging under the headline "Zack saves the game" write:

So, my friend, you are right once again. Distance, in the majors when it really matters, is not ruining the game. Distance, in the setting by which all other settings are judged, is over.

Uh, hate to be the bearer of bad news, but most the post-Masters discussion is not about what a wonderful thing it was to see the highest ever world ranked player win, but what a mess has been made of the course.

And why is the course a mess?

Oh that's right, because a bunch of old guys who are supposed to be really smart--many Augusta National members included--got outsmarted on the distance issue and have been cowering ever since.

No, I'm kind of thinking more people than ever see that these frustrated guys are using tacky setup ploys so they don't have to address the real issue.