USGA on U grooves: Impact on GCA?

[Larry_Keltto]

From this article and other sources, it sounds like something is going to happen soon on U grooves. Thoughts?

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=2758899

[Kyle Harris]

Makes me thankful I let my membership run out 3 years ago.

[TEPaul]

I think that announcement by the USGA on a possible I&B rule and reg change on grooves indicates as much by what it doesn't say as by what it does say.

A possible I&B rule and reg change on grooves just may be something of a "softening up" lead in to get manufacturers ready for a more important I&B rule and reg change proposal---eg on the golf ball.

I recall when this was all explained at last year's USGA annual meeting in Atlanta in a really good report by the USGA's Equipment Standard Committee chairman  Jim Vernon, the 2-3 areas in which he mentioned the USGA has been conducting a comprehensive (and expensive) study since 2002 include:

1. Spin Generation (grooves and club faces)
2. The golf ball

Don't forget, last year the USGA asked all ball manufacturers to submit prototypes of golf balls that go both 15 and 25 yards less far. I believe at this point all the manufacturers have probably agreed to do that.

[Jim Sweeney]

TEP:

I absolutely agree with you. We should remember that even if changes are decreed, they take time- grooves deemed non-conforming would be phased out over a lengthy period of time, because clubs last a long time. However, turnover in golf ball stock is relatively quick, so that could be done in as little as 12-18 months. Manufacturers also would need time to restructure their R&D efforts.

This suggestion also raises the ugly question of bifurcation, which has been analyzed ad nauseum on this site. But it would seem less threatening to the manufacturers if any new restriction on grooves was limited to tournament players, perhaps through the use of a local rule. Of course such a position creates havoc in top amateur competitions, and for that reason I think changes would not happen in that way.

I do like the tenor of the announcement and hope for the best.

[Jim Sweeney]

As far as any impact on GCA, I think it would have more of an impact of maintenance meld. What might one see?

- Removal of the second cut at Augusta?
- Wider ittermediate roughs at the US Open and the PGA?
- Hole locations back to minimum of 5 paces from the edges?
-

[Doug Siebert]

I bought my current set of irons right about the time the whole U groove thing was going on, but mine had V grooves in them - a year later everyone had U grooves.  I've been thinking I need to get some new irons, it would be fitting if I bought the last ones before they made everyone switch back

[Jim Sweeney]

Doug-

I don't know how often you tend to change clubs (I played my last set for 18 years) but there will peobably be a 3-5 year window if the USGA makea any changes and the changes apply to all golfers ( I hope they do).

I imagine that most people won't make any change in their clubs until they want to, not when the USGA wants them to.

[TEPaul]

Doug:

I think U grooves have been legal forever. The whole Karsten thing was over radiusing of the grooves not just U grooves.

[Paul Jones]

I though Ping was not conforming because the space between the grooves were not wide enough?

[Brent Hutto]

IIRC, the story was that Ping's grooves were "too sharp" and then when they radiused them they became "too close together" with both "how sharp is too sharp" and "how close together is too close" being disputed interpretations of basically eyeball inspection under magnification.

In the end it turned into a pissing contest between some  enormous individual egos with the result being millions of dollars wasted for no discenable benefit to anyone except the lawyers involved. I wouldn't be totally surprised to see another similar outcome this time around since I don't believe anyone involved is particuarly inclined to learn from history (rather than repeating it) and there are certainly millions of dollars sitting around just waiting to be put to "use".

[JohnV]

As I recall, Ping's grooves were so sharp that they cut the ball so they decided to radius them.  When they did that, they measured the distance between grooves from there the radius ended in the groove, while the USGA measured them from where the radius started which made them too close together.

As for Jim's ideas of what change could happen if the rules are changed, I think #2 is the one that is most likely.   The change would make the second cut at Augusta that much more effective so I think it would stay.  If the purpose of the hole locations being that close to the edge is to stop the player from the, then it might change.  If it is to make all players be that much more precise it won't.

Of course, if the players start dialing back the tee shots in order to keep the ball in the fairway, more changes might occur.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

I think this will have a huge impact on golf architecture for a very simple reason.

If the USGA said distance was the problem and addressed the issue, we could see a return to a focus on strategic play created by widened playing corridors. Or at least, an end to this ridiculous narrowing and rough harvesting that is going on at all levels of the game.

But by focusing on grooves and their impact on shots out of the rough, the USGA is saying that rough and narrow fairways are an integral part of the game that must be protected.

In other words, their definition of "for the good of the game" entails protecting the integrity of rough and narrowness. And I would ask, what's better for the game, wider playing corridors and less rough, or narrowed fairways and rough?

[Bryan Izatt]

Geoff,

I'm having a little trouble following your logic.  Are you assuming that regulation of grooves is the only regulatory action that the USGA will take?  If they follow with a further regulation on ball distance, how would that impact your assessment of the grooves regulation?

I'm not sure why reducing players' ability to play darts from the rough is a bad thing?  If as you wish the ball was reined in and courses had wider corridors and strategic options, are you suggesting that players would never be in the rough?  Never play darts from the rough?

I think you are making a large inference to suggest the USGA is saying that narrow fairways are an integral part of the game.  It could be that they're just trying to protect the integrity of rough as, well, rough - that is difficult.

As to what's better for the game, I know I can't speak for everyone. For me, I'd prefer wider corridor and recoverable rough.  It's more fun for me.  For professional that I watch as a fan, I'd prefer narrow fairways and rough.  It's more entertaining to watch.  I think that no matter how much distance the ball is reined in, it won't make a wide corridor, strategic course viable to challenge the pros.  As long as they are as good as they are from the fairways with irons, strategic angles are basicly meaninless for them.  They fly it, and stick it.  Bunkers aren't a hazard to them.  Rough around the green generally doesn't seem to be either with current I&B's.

[Brent Hutto]

If the USGA said distance was the problem and addressed the issue, we could see a return to a focus on strategic play created by widened playing corridors. Or at least, an end to this ridiculous narrowing and rough harvesting that is going on at all levels of the game.

But by focusing on grooves and their impact on shots out of the rough, the USGA is saying that rough and narrow fairways are an integral part of the game that must be protected.

Exactly. I couldn't quite put my finger on why the groove thing strikes me as being so bloody-minded and unhelpful but you've gotten to the crux of the issue.

They've abdicated any stewardship on the distance issue, presumably out of fear that a rollback would be a losing issue opposed by both the equipment companies and the majority of golfers. So in an effort to roll back scoring while allowing distance to remain constant (or increasing) they are settling on what they think is a more acceptable equipment change even though it will probably lead to an ugly, penal and beginner-unfriendly style of course design and setup.

[JohnV]

While changing the grooves might not lead to an increase of width in the fairways, it might lead to the rough not being grown as long.  If it becomes more difficult to hold a green from short rough, there is no need for longer rough.

It is interesting how we have gone full circle on the width of fairways.  There were a number of books and articles written around the turn of the 20th century decrying the width of the Old Course compared to how narrow it used to be.  Now we all love that width and act as if it has always been that way.

[Bryan Izatt]

They've abdicated any stewardship on the distance issue, presumably out of fear that a rollback would be a losing issue opposed by both the equipment companies and the majority of golfers. So in an effort to roll back scoring while allowing distance to remain constant (or increasing) they are settling on what they think is a more acceptable equipment change even though it will probably lead to an ugly, penal and beginner-unfriendly style of course design and setup.

Brent,

I'm not sure why you feel the USGA is abdicating on distance if "the majority of golfers" would oppose rolling distance back.  Isn't that the essence of democracy, going in the direction of the majority?  Or in this case, the minority know better what's "good for the game".  

And, regulating grooves (when and if they get around to doing it) doesn't necessarily mean they've abdicated on distance.  They are supposedly spending millions of dollars on looking at ways of rolling the ball back too.

The lemming-like march to "ugly, penal and beginner-unfriendly style of course design and setup" that you think is probably going to happen, is only going to happen if the majority of course owners and players want it that way.  How many players do you suppose want to regularly play on courses that are too penal for them?  Maybe once in a while to see how they stack up against the pros on a tournament course; but on a regular basis, I think not.

Are the newer well regarded courses built since the distance "explosion" such as Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills, We-Ko-Pa Saguaro, etc., etc. penal, ugly and narrow?  

To make John's point again, many of the old Scottish courses (with the exception of TOC), that are thought to be the basis for design of good golf courses as they were meant to be, are not wide rough-free in their design.

[Brent Hutto]

I'm not sure why you feel the USGA is abdicating on distance if "the majority of golfers" would oppose rolling distance back.  Isn't that the essence of democracy, going in the direction of the majority?  Or in this case, the minority know better what's "good for the game".  

And, regulating grooves (when and if they get around to doing it) doesn't necessarily mean they've abdicated on distance.  They are supposedly spending millions of dollars on looking at ways of rolling the ball back too.

I'm making no statement about the desirability of a continual increase in the distance people hit the golf ball. What I'm saying is that for all the money they're spending and all the studying they're doing, they are not keeping the game the same as it traditionally has been. The scale of the game grows ever larger and that's a fundamental change.

It is perfectly defensible to say that the larger scale is acceptable. It is not defensible to claim they are regulating the distance element when it is demonstrably changing with each passing year.

Some USGA statement to the effect of "We think it is inevitable that over time golfers will hit the ball farther and farther and our intention is to balance that distance by increased difficulty controlling the ball out of rough" then their actions would be consistent with their stated intentions.  But instead at various times thay claim that a) there is no distance increase or that b) there is distance increase but they'll be doing something about it Real Soon Now or most recently c) that distance is under control but the biggest change from the game as traditionally played is U-grooves making the rough an insufficient element of difficulty.

[Brent Hutto]

While changing the grooves might not lead to an increase of width in the fairways, it might lead to the rough not being grown as long.  If it becomes more difficult to hold a green from short rough, there is no need for longer rough.

I think this is one possible and rational path that a U-groove ban could lead to. If so that would be a great outcome.

I fear that, at least initially, as Geoff said putting "rough" into a position of prominence in everyone's mind via a much publicised equipment rule change will lead to the irrational result of courses going rough-crazy.

It's very hard to predict the behaviors of large groups of people acting over time.

[JohnV]

Brent,

I'm not sure it would happen, but it could.

I also don't think you'd see a lot of courses being shortened or the PGA Tour playing any shorter courses if 10% to 20% was taken off the ball.  They might not be adding as much, but I don't think they'd suddenly be playing the shorter tees.

I've recently been reading John Low's Concerning Golf written in 1903 and his comments about the wound ball are very similar to the ones we read here about the new balls.

[Doug Siebert]

I'm not sure why you feel the USGA is abdicating on distance if "the majority of golfers" would oppose rolling distance back.  Isn't that the essence of democracy, going in the direction of the majority?  Or in this case, the minority know better what's "good for the game".

Well, since I know you and I have very different views on the distance issue and aren't going to be seeing eye to eye, I'm not going to address that issue at all.  But I am curious what you'd say if that "majority rules" was something else that you feel shouldn't be changed?

I'll bet a majority of golfers play lost balls as "drop one in the area you think it was it was, and add one stroke" and OB as "drop one somewhere around the place it went out but not so close to the OB line that you are screwed on your next shot, and add one stroke".  At least, I see that all the time.

If the USGA polled golfers, I'll bet a majority would be behind those rule changes.  You sure you want to go with this position that the majority is always right?

And yes, I think the minority (i.e. USGA) DOES know better than the majority what is better for the game.  I don't happen to agree with their lack of action regarding the distance issue, but if they stay wrong in my eyes about that I certainly hope they don't take what the majority of golfers want in making any other decisions they do regarding the rules of the game, even if they get those wrong as well!

[Bryan Izatt]

Doug,

Don't get me wrong on the distance issue.  Length off the tee is not an issue that causes me, personally, a lot of heartburn.  The courses I play are plenty long from the middle of 5 tees that I play.  But, if the USGA rolled back the ball, I wouldn't loose sleep.  I might move up a set of tee blocks, but that is the only impact it would have on me.  The courses I play are not inclined to lengthen themselves (and they've had pro tournaments) nor are they inclined to narrow the fairways or grow the rough any worse than it is.  I don't get to play the classic courses that are apparently being defiled to protect themselves from devestation by touring pros.  I don't think that such courses can be preserved as museum pieces anyway.  So, I'm not terribly disturbed by that either.

My point, if I had one on distance, is that it is an issue that pertains to a very small percentage of the golfing population - those that don't want touring pros to score well and those who want to preserve classic courses in some static state for a game that was played 20 or 50 or 100 years ago.  Progress has a way of overwhelming those who try to stand in the way.

As to majority rules, sure, the majority gets it wrong sometimes or even often.  Hitler was elected wasn't he?  But benign dictatorships don't necessarily get it right either.  Who's to say that rolling the ball back 10% is right?  What are the criteria for what's right.  But if the benign dictatorship of the USGA regulates it back, then so be it.

Last year I councilled patience on the distance issue.  Seems like more patience is required.  My money is on them further regulating the ball.  When, is the question.

In the meantime I get e-mails from Sean O'Hair shilling the new TM drivers (which he hits so much further).  Seems the only difference is they made the shaft longer.  In the next couple of days Titleist is to launch the "new" Pro V1's.  Will the sky fall?  I'm betting that the Pros are playing them already and the average distance this year, so far, is down 3 yards on average.

If they regulated the OOB rule to be one stroke and drop at point of exit, that's OK with me.  I doubt it would have any impact on my enjoyment of the game or the challenge presented by the game.  As long as we all play under the same rules in competition.  Seems to me that I recall an earlier thread on the evolution of the OOB rule over the years - wasn't it drop and a stroke not so long ago?  On the rules, who's to say what's "right".  The rules are pretty arbitrary.

[Garland Bayley]

...
My point, if I had one on distance, is that it is an issue that pertains to a very small percentage of the golfing population - those that don't want touring pros to score well and those who want to preserve classic courses in some static state for a game that was played 20 or 50 or 100 years ago.  Progress has a way of overwhelming those who try to stand in the way.
...

It seems that MLB has stood in the way of aluminum bats, spitters, and sandpaper and that it hasn't been overwhelmed yet.

You seem to consider my home course a museum piece that should be done away with in the name of progress. I take execption to that!

[Bryan Izatt]

Garland,

Controlling aluminum bats in professional baseball is to MLB as controlling modern balls for profressional golfers is to ...................the PGA Tour?  In this analogy we should beat on the Tour, not the USGA.

Interesting inference.  I don't know what your home course. Is it a museum piece?  I have no thoughts on having it done away with!  How's it going at keeping it static?

[TEPaul]

Geoff Shackelford's point in post #11 about the effect of this groove regulation issue resulting in the protection of rough and narrow fairways as an integral part of the game at first seems counter-intuitive if not contradictory.

In other words, if the USGA is trying to control "spin generation", particularly out of the rough, it would seem that's working against the use of more rough and narrower fairways, not for it.

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 what Geoff Shackelford is really saying is that focusing the I&B rules and reg issue on "rough" and "spin generation" (grooves and club faces) instead of focusing the I&B rules and regs issue on reigning in distance is basically evading or avoiding where the real I&B problem in golf today lies---eg distance control.

Maybe the USGA/R&A isn't focusing on the wrong issue or a less important issue on purpose but they certainly do have a history in the last few decades in the area of I&B monitoring and Rules and Regs that results on golf courses in what perhaps may be called "unintended consequences".

I think this is probably the gist of GeoffShac's point.  

[Brent Hutto]

I think this is probably the gist of GeoffShac's point.  

A more subtle point Geoff is making is this...

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.

An anlogous situation is the USGA Handicap system which has had the unintended but quite real consequence of making US golfers approch the game as "Every Stroke Is Sacred" no matter what provisions are made for ESC or for attributing scores to unfinished or unplayed holes for handicap calculation purposes.

When you're in a position of perceived authority and influence, people won't necessarily take away the message you intend them to even with you make rational, reasonable pronouncements.