March 2007

Introduction from Frank

The USGA is in the process of making nonsensical equipment rules proposals in an attempt to harness the performance of touring professionals, and the overwhelming majority of golfers are getting caught in the crossfire.   Meanwhile, a solution to the problem -- if there is a problem -- that would leave 99.9% of golfers unaffected is being ignored.  Why?  As golfers, don't we have the right to the answer to real and important questions about these decisions?   Or did that get forfeited when the USGA renounced its amateur standing by selling out to American Express, Lexus, and Rolex? 

Here we go again...your grooves and the USGA

The ruling bodies of golf are making proposals again, this time to change the groove specification. I have had so many questions about this that I’m forced to address it again.

Once again, as I consider this proposal, I find myself asking Why? Does the USGA feel an innate need to purge its conscience, or because of its past indiscretions does it feel the need to do something – anything -- to demonstrate its relevance?

The United States Golf Association -- a body designed to lend order to the game -- has in the last six months lost its Amateur status by selling out to a Japanese car company, a Swiss watch company and an American credit card company. Can it still somehow accomplish its mission, or is the foundation crumbling?

We need the USGA. The association has as an object of its formation and existence, "the purpose of promoting and conserving throughout the United States the best interests and true spirit of the game of golf as embodied in its ancient and honorable traditions." This is truly an honorable cause and one which golfers can all support if it remains pure.

We follow and play by the rules the USGA and R&A have outlined in the "Rules of Golf" book because they make intuitive sense and form a code by which we can all abide, resulting in a semblance of order and peace. As long as those rules have a reasonable basis, we follow them without concern, assured that all is fair and well.

The rules are not intended to make the game difficult but rather to lend a degree of constancy, to uphold the integrity and protect the challenge that is so vital to this honorable sport.

Generally the Rules are reputable and make sense. They have been deliberated over for hours, in most cases, by wise and dedicated people.

But when this process goes off track, we need to be concerned. And we are reaching a point where something needs to be done; we need to question some of the proposals put forward by the ruling bodies and get some good answers  --or look elsewhere for true guardianship.

In the current example, the USGA and R&A have proposed a new rule to limit the size of the groove to half of its present cross sectional area. The reason given is that out of the light rough the pros are able to get more spin on the ball than the USGA feels they should. This new limit will make the game more difficult for everybody, but it is primarily aimed at the most accomplished golfers when playing from light rough (one inch deep), which is generally the first cut off the fairway. At some tournaments, this light rough may extend for some distance off the fairway, which allows the long hitters to flail away with little regard to their accuracy. 

Does “the ball stops too quickly when hit out of the rough” describe your experience?  Or that of anyone you know?  Does it sound like something you should be concerned about?  Does it sound to you like it falls under the rubric of “promoting and conserving throughout the United States the best interests and true spirit of the game of golf”?  I rather doubt these words were on the table or in the minds of the Executive Committee when this proposal was formulated.  More likely, the thought was one I heard so often from the Executive Committee trying to respond to the game’s elders concerns that equipment in the hands of the pros is spoiling  the game and “We have to do something.”

If spin from light rough is such a problem, then why not take the most common-sense approach: for the specific events (championships) where the very accomplished are competing and the object of the event is to identify a true champion, grow the rough to 3 to 4 inches, so the penalty is more than half a stroke for being wayward. The USGA did this at the 2006 Open, and achieved its goal splendidly.

Another proposal still under consideration is to roll the ball back (shorten its potential distance) by  25 yards.  This would be another irresponsible and irrational decision. It is safe to say that 95% or more of the golfing population can’t hit the ball far enough already; the proposal’s roots lie in the performance of less that .001% of the golfing population.  The USGA could and should have kept a lid on the upper ranges of distance almost ten  years ago when it allowed a certain amount of spring-like effect in the faces of titanium drivers, even though the rules clearly stated that none was permissible.  Now it may try to rectify this error, which aids everyone but can be fully exploited only by the elite golfers, with a rollback in the balls for everyone.  Will golfers follow a rule that hurts them unreasonably?  If the rollback is adopted, golfers may well decide to keep using the balls they have and feel comfortable with, and manufacturers will keep making them, and the USGA will lose influence and authority.

There is no evidence that the game will benefit from adoption of the new groove proposal. There is, however, evidence that if adopted, it will cause unnecessary conflict and upheaval at a time when the game needs peace and help. Rounds per year are decreasing, and that’s been true for approximately five years; more courses are closing than opening.

If there is any evidence that the new groove proposal is going to be good for the game as a whole, we need to see it before we blindly accept it and follow like lemmings.      

Let's support the USGA and what it stands for, but let’s also ask a few questions about whom they’re representing. In a recent survey, 60% of our Frankly Friends (avid and concerned golfers) believe that we should use course set up to control long and wild golfers, and nearly 90% believe the USGA is not representing the average golfer.

Based on the USGA's recent proposals and its entrée  into the commercial world, we have the right and obligation to ask if our ruling bodies are acting as the game’s guardians or simply in their own self interest. If it’s the latter, then we the golfers have a problem that needs to be sorted before it goes too far.

Frankly What Do You Think ?

If there is a problem with the amount of spin professionals can put on the ball from light rough, should this problem be solved through a rules change  for all of us or by growing the rough at championship  venues?