My Take on Grooves
The USGA is making noises again, this time about changing the specification for grooves. Its notice to manufacturers refers to the status of the USGA’s research and states in part, “It is possible that this research could lead to future proposals for new measurements, new tests and limits for club or ball parameters which affect spin,” adding, “-- particularly spin generated by irons.”
Their main concern is that on the PGA Tour, top players can bomb away with impunity, because the grooves on their iron clubs eliminate the intended hazardous effect of missing a fairway, making it easier to stop the ball on the greens even when the ball lies in heavy rough.
This particular situation is different from the lawsuit between the USGA and Ping that some of you may remember (and I remember all too well). At that time, the issue was that the Ping irons’ grooves were determined to be closer together than the limits permitted; they didn’t conform to the existing regulations. Today, the USGA is implying it may change those specifications in a way that would probably affect every existing club with grooves. I am sure they would include some kind of grace period, but this seems like a major upheaval, unless there is really sound evidence that there is a problem and this action is going to solve it.
I can say with confidence that the research conducted by the USGA is sophisticated, sound, and conducted by some exceptionally bright and well qualified scientists; I take some pride in and credit for having chosen them for the team in the first place.
With the new tools at their disposal, they will no doubt make significant advances in our understanding of the collision between club and ball. The information concerning grooves will go well beyond the already extensive studies we conducted in the 1980s. All the research conducted by this team will make a significant contribution to a better understanding of the Science of Golf.
I ask only that it be used with wisdom to help make the game more enjoyable while maintaining and protecting the appropriate challenge that is the very essence of the game’s addictive charm.
At the 2006 U.S. Open we saw the best way to deal with long-hitting but sometimes wayward pros; the answer lies in strategic course setup. But the success of that championship did little to stop those who want further changes to keep the long hitters from making classic older courses obsolete.
This outcry continues even though the USGA has awarded the 2013 U.S. Open to Merion Golf Club -- perhaps the most-often cited example of a course rendered too simple and short by modern equipment. Actions speak loudly here, and bringing the Open back to Merion suggests that such fears may be overblown.
The other actions taken in recent years to rein in distance are limits on the length and MOI (Moment of Inertia is a measure of a club’s forgiveness factor), for drivers, limiting the length of a tee, and frequent talk about rolling back the ball by 25 yards. None of these actions seem necessary, and will probably have little effect on the expressed problem. My question is, are they addressing the wrong question? These limitations reflect a disproportionate focus on the elite, very elite, golfers who make up less than ½ of one percent of the golfing population.
The real problem in golf is not that the pros are hitting the ball too far. The game is becoming less popular, and fewer people are enjoying it. Yes, some golfers are masochists and love to play courses that are forever being made longer and harder and more expensive. Most aren’t. The disproportionate attention to distance leads developers and architects to build courses that take longer to play, cost more to create and maintain – and thus to play -- and are intimidating to the less-skilled golfer we should be encouraging instead of driving away.
These are the issues we should urge the USGA to focus on. Even though the popularity of the game is not an explicit part of its charter, it is nonetheless a good measure of how effective it is as the game’s guardian.
Golf needs strong and sound leadership to reinforce some of its cracking foundations, and the USGA is the only organization we have that can play this role. Worrying about new specifications for grooves, to solve a problem that has not been adequately defined, may not be the best focal point for the USGA at this time.
Let’s support the USGA and what it stands for, as stated in the most significant section of its certificate of incorporation:
“THIRD: The association has been formed and exists for 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.”
And while we’re at it, let’s help the organization remember that the game that matters is played by tens of millions of people, not merely by a few thousand professionals.
|
