USGA on U grooves: Impact on GCA?

[BCrosby]

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

[Garland Bayley]

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?

I am sorry that you don't understand that making rules against aluminum bats, spitters, and sandpaper is not analogous to the rule making function of the USGA.

As far as my home course is concerned, they had an architect come in an produce a long range plan. The plan in my opinion is a poorly disguised plan to sqeeze out all possible additional yardage with little architectural merit. Eventually it will have to come to a vote to implement the more expensive propositions in the plan. At that point, we will see whether we can keep it static. Of course, keeping it static may mean we will not be able to recruit young members who hit the modern ball too far to find the course interesting.
 Inability to bring in new members could spell the death of the course.

[Garland Bayley]

...
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.

[Doug Siebert]

Brent,

Attacking spin generation makes the rough you have today more effective against better players, so that they are more likely to want to stay out of it and not FLOG it with a driver all the time.  I don't think its going to make them want to make the rough more of a feature, it will just have a bigger effect on the better players when they find themselves in it.  As it is now, if they are hitting a wedge out of it, being in the rough hardly matters to these guys.  Do you remember some of the stuff Mickelson did out of the Medinah rough last year?  He actually sucked the ball back once out of the 5 1/2" stuff -- OK, the greens were soft, but that's just insane!

Give an average golfer V grooves or even no grooves and they probably would notice very little difference out of the rough, because they aren't making anything like the best contact they can from the rough and as a consequence aren't generating much spin anyway.

While I still think distance is an issue, I guess grooves are an issue that's easier to attack now because it really has caused a disproportionate benefit to better players and really doesn't do squat for the bogey golfer.  Maybe the USGA thinks that successfully taking on the grooves issue, without the sky falling down, will give them some cred to do something about the ball.  Or maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part

Its interesting that it really took the new ball/driver combo to put the groove issue on the USGA's radar.  With driving distance in the late 80s, combined with the fact that less of that distance was flight and more of it roll meant that if the average drive is 25 yards longer today (whatever it is, I'm too lazy to look it up) then the average drive in the rough is quite possibly 40 yards longer today.  So guys who were at middle iron distance from the rough in the late 80s are now at wedge distance today, and the improved grooves make that benefit even greater.

On a 440 yard hole with a driver into the rough, the expected score is probably at least a half stroke lower between the shorter shot to the green and better control of the ball from the rough.  If new groove rules make that control more dicey, you take some of that advantage away.  Maybe its only that guys aren't pin hunting from the rough with a wedge and have to play to the fat of the green and take an easy par so its not like 1987 where the guy with the 6 iron is just hoping to avoid bogey.  But hitting the fairway becomes more important because the guys know that birdie is the name of the game and if birdies are hard to come by from the rough they'll find a way to hit it in the fairway.

Its a start, at least.

[Bryan Izatt]

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?

[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?

I am sorry that you don't understand that making rules against aluminum bats, spitters, and sandpaper is not analogous to the rule making function of the USGA.

As far as my home course is concerned, they had an architect come in an produce a long range plan. The plan in my opinion is a poorly disguised plan to sqeeze out all possible additional yardage with little architectural merit. Eventually it will have to come to a vote to implement the more expensive propositions in the plan. At that point, we will see whether we can keep it static. Of course, keeping it static may mean we will not be able to recruit young members who hit the modern ball too far to find the course interesting.
 Inability to bring in new members could spell the death of the course.

Garland,

I get your point about the bats, etc.  I was just making the point that the MLB controls professional baseball.  The USGA is custodian of rules for all golfers, not just the professional game.  The USGA has a broader mandate than just protecting the game at the professional level.  Perhaps the Tour should establish its own rules and protect the game as they want to see it.  That would be analagous to the baseball scenario.

Sadly, I am still confused about the point you're making about your club.  I take it you're on the side of not lengthening your course.  And, you're in the minority at your club?  But then you see the consequence of not lengthening the course being the loss of membership and the subsequent failure of the club.  I guess if the  USGA doesn't regulate length and save your club the need to lengthen, then your recourse is to try to persuade more of your fellow members that they ought to enjoy a relatively short course.  Otherwise I guess the majority rules.  Damn democracy.

[Brent Hutto]

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]

[TEPaul]

"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."

Brent:

That's a good example of "unintended consequences".

That problem in US handicapping goes all the way back to the 1920s when gross scores were required.

Hole by hole posting would solve every match play handicap problem there is in one fell swoop, and they know that.

Even Max Behr wrote an incisive article on that solution back in the 1920s!  

[TEPaul]

       "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 Sweeney]

TEP:

You are probably right that this is a first step, but characterizing the grooves issue as a "straw man" doesn't quite ring true.

If the issue overriding issue is distance, spin generation (grooves) is a big part of that issue. The distance players hit the ball is in part related to their lack of fear of hitting it in the rough because of their ability to generate spin even out of the hay.

The groove issue is not insignificant, therefore, which is why I don't see it as a "straw man." It is an important issue on its own, and the USGA/R&A has treated it as such.

[TEPaul]

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!!

[Bryan Izatt]

Brent,

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.

Tom,

Perhaps you meant a "pilot" or a "trial balloon rather than a "straw man".  Wikipedia says: "A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."

Seems to me that they might be using spin as a trial balloon for change to see if they can, through the use of notice, research, interim reports, and feedback processes before regulation, get change to happen without getting into legal hassles.  If the trial balloon gets shot down then they might reassess how they would attack the distance issue.

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..

[Garland Bayley]

...
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.

[TEPaul]

"Seems to me that they might be using spin as a trial balloon for change to see if they can, through the use of notice, research, interim reports, and feedback processes before regulation, get change to happen without getting into legal hassles.  If the trial balloon gets shot down then they might reassess how they would attack the distance issue."

Bryan:

Precisely! I think that is exactly why they intentionally may've put the "groove" issue first. After all it very likely is going to be an I&B rule and reg change just as the ball or distance issue is likely to be.

Don't forget the USGA/R&A have not made all that many major I&B Rule and Reg changes in the last thirty years. The last major one was probably COR and we all know how contentious that got.

[Brent Hutto]

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.

[TEPaul]

Bryan and Garland:

I have no idea if the USGA is going to try to control distance by requiring that golf balls have more spin.

All I know is the USGA tech center believes that this is an area that physics shows could work to potentially control distance. They certainly admit that it isn't the only way to control distance though. However, it may be a way that is something of a win/win across the player levels.

We should realize when we discuss this subject, that the USGA has asked all the manufacturers to submit prototype golf balls to be studied by the USGA Tech Center that go 15 and 25 yards less far but the USGA or their tech center has certainly not told any of the manufacturers how to go about doing that.

Obviously what they want to look at is how the manufacturers do go about doing that and obviously being competitive companies the manufacturers will go about it in different ways.

It appears the only requirement from the USGA on these prototype golf balls is that they DO go 15 and 25 yards less far.

At this point, however, I don't think any of us even know what that means. 15 and 25 yards less far than what??  

Would it be 15 and 25 yards less far than the present ODS "pass/fail" line?  

Probably. At least that sounds logical.

[JohnV]

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.

[Garland Bayley]

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.

Two different issues. The U grooves cause spin by gathering more grass, and perhaps by having a sharper edge.

The ball spin is from the ability of ball makers to vary how the ball would spin from either being an all soft ball, or an all hard ball. The all hard ball is best for driving. The all soft ball is best for approaching. The ball makers have made a hybrid ball that in my opinion violates the spirit of the rule that says you cannot change the clubface to change spin. The ball makers realized they could get around this rule by changing the ball.

[Bryan Izatt]

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.

[TEPaul]

"Spin as related to distance is a driver issue - where there are no grooves."

Bryan:

That's what most people seem to think but it probably isn't that much more than half the distance issue.

These elite players hit their irons percentage-wise that much farther today compared to 10-12 years ago as they do their drivers. And the reason, I believe, is all about carry distance due to an altered trajectory. If you haven't seen these elite players in person recently they hit all their shots a mile higher than they used to and that's what translates into the increased distance.  

Do you remember that old trajectory all the good high swing speed players used to have that went out flat for about 100 yards and then took off into the air with a climb like a Lear jet? Have you ever wondered why they don't hit the ball with that trajectory anymore?

[Bryan Izatt]

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.

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

It was possible to hit the ball high back then with those old super high spinning soft balls but probably about 10 times harder to do. Not just that but I doubt anyone back then could hit the ball as high as they can and do today.

I recall you have a pretty good technical mind about these kinds of things so what do you think it actually was that kept those old high spinning soft balls down in that initial 100 yards or so when hit by a power player? What do you think it was that created that much drag?

[Brent Hutto]

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.

[Brent Hutto]

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).

But there's still the two questions of why those wound Balata balls were necessarily way toward the high-spin/low-launch end of the tradeoff when hit hard (it has to with the fact that they deformed so much but once again the details are vague in my memory) as well as the whole lift/drag thing.

[Garland Bayley]

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.