Yes, Geoff and Brent nail it.

The USGA wants rough to matter.

To do that you limit grooves that can beat the rough.

Then you can attack the distance problem with rough.

As mathematicians say, elegant.

A total cop-out, but elegant.

Bob

...
On the other hand, some spokespeople have said that today's grooves actually create greater spin generation out of rough than from fairway which of course makes practically no physics sense and seems to defy common sense.
...

I think these are the people who read the sensationalist headline and don't delve into the topic to find the truth. I believe the truth the published reports convey is that the grooves don't give more spin than regular grooves from the fairway, but their ability to capture more grass inside the groove getting the clubface closer to or onto the ball, gives them the ability to "create greater spin generation out of the rough" than regular grooves.

Just so we're all talking about the same thing, here are some quotes from the Wishon E-TECH Report from last September.  His thoughts are based on the interim report the USGA released to manufacturers for comment.  The questions are mine; the quotes are from Wishon.

What is the USGA concerned about?

"Why is the USGA looking at possibly outlawing U-grooves and going back to V-grooves or a variation in between? Statistics is the answer. The USGA is concerned that hitting fairways on the PGA Tour is no longer a guaranteed path to tournament success. In other words, the USGA is upset that too much success is being garnered by players who hit the ball 300+ yds into the rough and are able to hit and hold greens with irons and wedges played from the tall grass. And the blame is being squarely focused on U-shaped, or box groove scorelines instead of these players’ high swing speeds."

What about there being more spin out of the rough than from the fairway?

"The USGA reported that it was clear from the player data that the configuration of modern club faces has significant performance improvements over the traditional V-shaped groove in grassy lies. For some lofts, it was found that spin using the U-groove club in the rough was actually higher than from a clean lie."

So, what is the difference in spin out of the rough?

"While space limitations in the E-TECHreport limits the inclusion of the vast amount of test data compiled so far by the USGA, in a nutshell, the player and lab testing have revealed that U-groove spin rates from the rough were in the area of 40% higher for the 5- and 8-iron, and approximately 25% higher for the Sand Wedge, than for the V-groove clubheads."

So, do those sound like issues worth addressing?  IMHO, yes, as long as I don't have to buy new irons any time soon.  Does groove regulation address bomb and gouge golf, especially on Tour?  Sure.  It addresses the gouge part.

Has the USGA actually said they'll regulate V-grooves.  Nope, not yet.

Does this mean that the USGA won't regulate the ball?  Who knows?  This is about grooves.  I haven't heard of any interim reports yet on distance.  That's not to say one isn't coming.  

Does this infer that the USGA is endorsing rough and narrow fairways, or that it will be an unintended consequence of regulating grooves?  I don't know.  In a perverse world I guess that there might be some proportion of course owners who are going to narrow their fairways and grow their rough to punitive heights so that nobody can bomb and gouge their course.  But, I won't be playing those courses.  It'd be no fun.

Maybe it just infers that the USGA thinks rough should be rough to get out of - a deterent to missing fairways, especially for the Tour.  What's wrong with that?

Maybe it just infers that the USGA thinks rough should be rough to get out of - a deterent to missing fairways, especially for the Tour.  What's wrong with that?

As I mentioned earlier, I see nothing wrong with their intentions (assuming of course that their intentions are as stated, which I'm willing to assume). I just don't believe it will necessarily have the effect that they hope.

It is left as an exercise to the reader to think of an example in current events where obviously good intentions lead to equally obvious unintended-but-horrific consequences. In the end, the consquences remain long after the intentions are forgotten [insert obligatory Julius Ceasar quotation]

       "By switching their talk from "distance" to "spin out of the rough" they risk promulgating the message "The Rough's The Thing" which would lead to the outcome Geoff is worried about.
       "To a certain extent whatever the USGA choose to emphasize from their bully pulpit as keepers of the Rules tends to get interpreted as having preeminent inportance over the other elements of the game."

Brent:

I've spoken with GeoffShac about this kind of thing quite a bit over the years and we have a difference of opinion on it. Obviously he thinks the USGA is trying to change the issue so they won't have to deal with the distance issue.

I admit, I've always been the optimist because I think they are going to do some about distance via the ball.

I think trotting out this groove issue is a total "strawman" on their part and the next proposal from them is going to be on the ball.

Why do you think they've asked all the manufacturers to submit prototype balls that go 15 and 25 yards less far?  

The manufacturers aren't naive---they know something is probably going to be coming down the I&B rules and regs pipeline at them on the ball and they have all kinds of time to R&D and prepare for it (Titleist even patented their prototype for Christs Sake ) and furthermore no judge is ever going to say the USGA just sprung it on them. If the manufacturers didn't want any part in the issue of ball control they probably wouldn't have agreed to submit prototype golf balls to the USGA in the first place.

Don't forget, at last year's USGA Annual meeting Equipment Standards Chairman Jim Vernon in his annual report said loud and clear that the USGA has spent a lot of research money on all the characterstics of golf ball dynamics and that they may be looking at potential new regs in two areas:

1. Spin Generation
2. The Ball

Spin generation, by the way, is grooves and club faces to them. I can't imagine why he would've mentioned #2 if they were trying to completely avoid the issue of distance. The thing I'm surprised about with the ball though is apparently the USGA has actually offered to pay the manufacturers for the production of their prototype balls. I'm not so sure I would have done that if I were them but it's probably an example of how sensitively the whole distance issue is being handled.

By this time next year I think we are going to see a proposed new reg on the golf ball that will deal with distance probably in the neighborhood of what they asked for on those prototype balls.

I think this groove thing is something of a "strawman" that they are just trotting out first in the new atmosphere of I&B Rules and Regs change and they are just going to try to fly a rule and reg change on this whole ball and distance thing right under the radar.

Why would they want to fly a bunch of flags over the issue? That would just piss people off including the manufacturers and there's no sense in doing that if you don't have to.

Jim:

Oh, I'm certainly not saying the "groove" issue isn't important---obviously it is. It's just not as identifiable and as hot an issue as "distance".

Of course "spin generation" does relate to distance but the golfing public clearly makes less of a connection to distance over the groove issue than it will when the USGA roles out #2---eg THE BALL.

When that issue is rolled out there isn't a golfer in America who won't realize it's being rolled out for one reason only---eg to control the distance the golf ball goes, period.

The real irony, in my opinion, will be that perhaps the primary way the USGA and the manufacturers are going to control or rollback distance is by requiring balls that will have to SPIN MORE!!

...
As we've discussed before, IMHO it would be easier technologically to roll back distance thorugh controlling the elasticity of the ball or increasing drag through controlling dimples rather than through regulating spin.  One of the unintended consequences of using increased spin to limit distance is that it might allow more spin on iron shots and defeat the purpose of the v-groove regulation..

This doesn't now, nor will it ever make sense to me.
Increasing the spin off the ball is not going to prevent grass getting between the clubhead and the ball. Furthermore, it sounds like a proposal to put the knuckleball into golf with increased drag.

Of course there are often unintended consequences from actions that are taken.  But if you never take any action out of fear of unintended consequences then not much of anything would happen in the world.  Better to take action and then deal with the perverse unintended consequences.

And that's probably a fundamental difference between us, Bryan. For me "not much of anything" happening would be preferable to the majority of stuff that does happen. It is the modern curse to be constantly solving so-called problems that are in fact just the (unintended) consequences of the so-called solution to a previously imagined problem. I think we need take a little harder line on what rises to the level of Problem.

Of course, unintended doesn't necessarily mean unforseeable but in any case I'm a firm believer in the maxim "Don't do something, just stand there". They used to call that being "conservative" although I guess the word has been appropriated for other uses of late.

Tom,

Lets assume that the USGA is considering increasing the spin rate on balls.  Given that they already feel the grooves put to much spin on the ball from the rough, doesn't it make sense to cut back the spin off the club first so that it equals out or even improves that factor.

Sort of like when I quit smoking 30 years ago.  I lost 20 pounds before I quit.  Then when I gained 15 pounds from quitting, I was still ahead.

Tom,

Certainly seems likely that the manufacturers will try to achieve the reduced distance requirement while maintaining some kind of market differentiation for their product.  I can see the advertising now - our ball reaches the new USGA max and it's the straightest ball out there or the highest flying or it drops and stops, or..........

I'll defer to the PhD's at the USGA to determine how they want to regulate distance down.  And, then we can reopen the debate.  Whatever approach they take (if they take any) will likely have some unintended consequences as the manufacturers try to play around within the regulations.

Brent,

I understand.  You're a Luddite.  

John,

Not sure I follow.  The u-groove thing is about spin with irons out of the rough.  Spin as related to distance is a driver issue - where there are no grooves.

Tom,

Between 1990 and today average driving distance on Tour has gone up about 10%.  I can buy your assertion that iron distances on tour have gone up by 10% as well.  And, yes I've seen modern players and the height of their shots.  And, yes I remember the upshoot driver trajectory (although not all pros hit that shot even in those days).  And, yes higher spin balls will accentuate that trajectory if a player hits it.

But, I disagree that establishing a higher minimum spin rate for the driver (or any other club) will necessarily create the upshoot trajectory.  The trajectory is also a function of the swing and the characteristics of the clubhead and shaft.  I think so much more is understood now about golf equipment and swing dynamics that the manufacturers and players will find a way to hit a more optimal high flat trajectory even with a higher spinning ball.  But, only time will tell.

As I recall, Nicklaus hit a high soft 3 iron that was not an upshooter.  So even with the older equipment it was possible.

The trajectory is also a function of the swing and the characteristics of the clubhead and shaft.  I think so much more is understood now about golf equipment and swing dynamics that the manufacturers and players will find a way to hit a more optimal high flat trajectory even with a higher spinning ball.  But, only time will tell.

As I recall, Nicklaus hit a high soft 3 iron that was not an upshooter.  So even with the older equipment it was possible.

I tend to agree. Unless the Rules are somehow going to force them into a ultra-spin ball they're going to figure out how to hit that long, flat shot with whatever equipment and ball they are allowed to use. That style of play is just too powerful not to take advantage of.

I don't think anyone in Nicklaus's heyday could even imagine the advantages of playing like the modern power players do, although Jack himself was a harbinger.

There is a direct trade-off between initial launch trajectory and initial backspin for any given impact conditions. The more a ball spins the lower it starts out and vice versa. It's a conservation of momentum or conservation of energy thing (can't recall which right now).
...

Boy I would like to see you show how that above assertion is true.