News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


MarkT

Johnny Miller's comment on technology
« on: March 06, 2006, 02:34:14 PM »
I'm surprised no one has posted about Johnny Miller's comments Saturday about what to do about the distance.

He didn't say anything about the ball. Didn't say anything about shafts or size of club heads. His recommendation was to do away with square grooves. That the players today swing as hard as they can because it doesn't matter if the ball ends up in the rough, that because of square grooves, putting spin on the ball out of the rough is not a problem.

I remember in the early 80's when Jack Nickalaus was doing commentary for ABC and anybody hit a shot to the green from the rough, Jack would start chanting "square grooves, square grooves".

So? Is distance the problem or the inability to penalize shots in the rough?

Mark Arata

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Johnny Miller's comment on technology
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2006, 04:17:00 PM »
It certainly couldnt hurt if they banned the grooves, it would make some of the pros think twice about bombing away if they couldnt hold the greens out of the rough......but I doubt it.

Even without square grooves, if they are only 70-80 yards away from the green, I imagine they all can hit the ball high enough to stop it most of the time anyway.

Now, if they banned square grooves and limited the loft of wedges to 56 degrees, you might have something.........
New Orleans, proud to swim home...........

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Johnny Miller's comment on technology
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2006, 05:37:36 PM »
Here's a quote from the Golf Channel's Website.

"On the front nine Sunday at Doral Woods hit zero fairways in regulation and all nine greens. Don’t, by the way, think any of this has been lost on golf’s governing agencies. The chatter in the back channels at the offices of the regulators is that technology in the grooves on the faces of wedges has quietly advanced. Getting the ball to stop on the green out of the rough, the whisperers say, has become easier. Some say too easy."

Maybe Johnny's on to something.


Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Johnny Miller's comment on technology
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2006, 06:35:51 PM »
The ball, 11 clubs and do away with grooves too.
Not just do away with box grooves, but all grooves or markings on the clubface.

In the book, In Search of the Perfect Golf Swing (eons before box grooves), the researchers discovered that it didn't matter if the club had grooves or not when hit from the fairway.

In the rough, a different story.

So, why not do away with grooves altogether?

A rolled-back ball, 11 clubs, no grooves or markings (there would have to be an abrasion limit on the club faces too) on any clubs and we'd find out who could golf their ball.
 

TEPaul

Re:Johnny Miller's comment on technology
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2006, 06:53:38 PM »
"In the book, In Search of the Perfect Golf Swing (eons before box grooves), the researchers discovered that it didn't matter if the club had grooves or not when hit from the fairway."

Tony:

How've you been Pal?

That just may be a pretty fair statement of yours above.

It very well may be that the USGA may pass down some new rules and regs on grooves or on something that may have the effect grooves do on the ball. You'll notice that the USGA has put the manufacturers on notice that they are seriously looking at three aspects with perhaps the idea of doing something about some or each of them. They call those three areas;

1. MOI (Moment of Inertia)
2. Spin Generation
3. The ball

I believe what they are looking at with "spin generation" is how and how much various clubfaces effect the spin rate of golf balls.

I've always been intrigued by what Barney Adams told me one time about what grooves do and all they do on a golf club. Barney referred to grooves as "garbage cans". When I asked him what he meant by that he said their sole function is to displace "junk" off the clubface and the bigger the grooves the more junk they displace. Therefore since U or Box grooves displace more junk off the clubface than V grooved do they simply work better out of the rough.

So you're probably right about the fairway. On most fairways there's no junk to displace off the face of the golf club (unless there's water on the fairway or they're pretty long). Obviously Barney was basically saying with a clean clubface grooves have very little to nothing to do with the spin the clubface puts on the golf ball. If one really thinks hard about what he said it sort of becomes obvious it really couldn't be otherwise.  ;)

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Johnny Miller's comment on technology
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2006, 08:09:40 PM »

I remember in the early 80's when Jack Nickalaus was doing commentary for ABC and anybody hit a shot to the green from the rough, Jack would start chanting "square grooves, square grooves".

I recall that Jack made that comment during the 1987 US Open at Olympic when someone (Calc, maybe) stopped a PW on the green from the rough on the par 5 16th.  Jack didn't think that should have been possible given the firmness of the green.
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Johnny Miller's comment on technology
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2006, 11:41:11 PM »
Doing away with grooves is an interesting suggestion.  It would be easy to check clubs for compliance visually, but what happens if you decide to practice with each of your irons in turn for a few hours from a desert lie with lots of sharp little stones?  I guess at some point in organized tournaments clubs could be judged by the committee to be unfit for play.

I do like it overall because while it affects everyone, it would have its largest effect on the best players who are able to hit shots from the rough perfectly nearly 100% of the time and therefore take full advantage of the grooves.  They'd need to adjust by either not missing the fairway or using their head more instead of just throwing it up in the air right at the pin and knowing the ball will spin.

It shouldn't hurt poor players too much, if a 20 handicap has a 1 in 10 chance of hitting a wedge from thick rough just right to where the grooves would matter to the result of his shot, it'll only affect him on 1 of 10 shots, versus 10 of 10 for a pro.

What about hybrids?  I thought the theory behind utility woods is that they push the grass aside rather than cutting through it like an iron?  If that's true, then grooves would matter much less for a hybrid, which would mean the loss of grooves would mean much less?  Maybe some equipment makers would get smart and make a hybrid-like wedge, and we're almost back where we started? :)
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back