I have had a few days to digest the USGA and R&A’s decision to go forth with grooves regulation beginning in 2010 for major professional competitions and 2014 for amateur players. When the proposal was made almost 18 months ago, I was soundly against the decision to regulate grooves. At the time, I thought that the only way to get to appropriate regulation of golf technology would be through scaling back golf ball technology. The decision to try to regulate grooves appeared to be a weak attempt by the USGA to back door into the true regulation required.

Over time, though, I have come around on grooves regulation. In fact, this year, I went so far as to demand that it happen. I backed it in the shadow of doubt cast over the future of the regulation in the early part of the year, particularly because of the R&A’s reported stalling on the acceptance of the rule change.

In the linked column, I noted PGA Tour data that I had analyzed to discover that players – on the whole – have not modified their club selection approach to par 4s and par 5s. Therefore, I drew the conclusion that the regulations for drivers already put in place by the USGA had no real impact on how players approach these holes. Additionally, the tightening of course setups by the PGA Tour in recent years has had a statistically insignificant impact of how professionals play from the tee.

The conclusion to draw from that fact now seems clear. Professional golf is a distance game. For the average professional, the rule off of the tee is to hit the ball as far as possible. This agrees with the USGA’s initial research that indicated the lack of correlation between hitting fairways and winning golf tournaments. It also agrees with research I have done – even before the USGA proposed grooves regulation.

Therefore, if golf is a distance game and hitting fairways do not matter, then players feel more confident hitting their approaches from closer to the hole and in the rough than from the fairway and further back. In effect, this eliminates a crucial skill of the game from the equation. What is to blame for that? The USGA evidence suggests, and I agree, that golf club grooves allow players to spin the golf ball better in tandem with current golf ball technology.

Current U grooves allows players to have better control over shots from the rough and, combined with distance gains, lets them play with a shorter club in their hands. Regulating the size and shape of those grooves will reduce professionals’ ability to control the ball from the rough. The stated hope of the USGA and R&A is that this will restore the importance of rough in tournament play. While that may be true, that stated hope is missing the point.

The real goal of this regulation should be that players would be encourage to put the ball in the fairway more often. On the eve of the PGA Championship, Trevor Immelman spoke very candidly about the reaction professionals will have to this regulation and spoke about how players will pursue shorter drives to put the ball in the fairway. In effect, this regulation could move the needle on the PGA Tour data I analyzed earlier this year. Players will leave distance on the table to avoid the rough and have ball control from the fairway. They will leave distance on the table by switching to a softer golf ball that will allow them better control from the rough than current golf balls. This is de facto golf ball regulation, and that is what I wanted in the first place.

This regulation is not perfect, though. After all, this regulation is reactionary. It is not proactive. With an 18 month window before this formal announcement of acceptance, and another 18 months before implementation at the professional ranks, the golf manufacturers may have sufficient time to develop golf balls that respond to the new grooves in a very similar fashion to the existing standard of U grooves. Basically, the manufacturers could out-maneuver the USGA and R&A before the standard even becomes enforced.

Immelman also spoke about how his sponsor, Nike, is already working on a golf ball that will allow multi-piece distance and control in conjunction with V grooves. No wonder a lawsuit is not imminent from the manufacturers. They would rather spend money beating the rule than fighting it.

If that does happen, and the manufacturers dupe the ruling bodies, then the USGA and R&A will be left with little recourse but to regulate the golf ball more than it does today. Fortunately for the ruling bodies, they have set a precedent for working with the manufacturers to design regulation and work out the kinks before implementation. They could do so again for regulation of the golf ball, if needed, and manage to avoid the massive lawsuit that causes the USGA to save money hand over fist.

In the end, this is a positive step forward for professional golf. No matter how we get to the end result, it will help restore skill to the game that is missing today.

Geoff Shackelford has a good recap post of reactions in the media room from players at the PGA Championship to the rules change that has been approved by the R&A and USGA.

My favorite reaction, though, is from Masters champion Trevor Immelman.

[Y]ou can change the grooves, but then they’re going to have to scale the golf courses back, because you can’t give guys no advantage with grooves. Because you got to understand one thing: As soon as we change the grooves, we’re probably going to have to alter the ball we use, because if you’re not getting as much spin, you’re probably going to have to start using a softer golf ball.

In the last few years, we’re using harder golf balls because the drivers allow us to launch the ball higher off the tee. So we need less spin, and we have had good grooves on our irons, so we have been able to launch the ball to create enough spin.

So we’re going to have to go back and the manufacturers are going to have to go back to the drawing board. And I know Nike has been working on this since the USGA started sending the smoke up that they may be doing this. I had a look at a few prototypes where they have started working on some different groove variations.

And I like I was saying, as we change the grooves, we’re going to have to start maybe looking at the way our golf ball is performing. And at that point the R&A and USGA may have to decide how they’re going to set the golf courses up. Are we still going to have rough that is this deep (indicating). And like today out there, we have got guys the rough is pretty juicy here but you still got guys with these rakes out there making sure that it stands up this high. It’s quite interesting.

But so I think that you’re going to have to give and take. So that’s where they’re going to have to figure out how are they going to give and take. Because they can’t just keep taking.

Couldn’t be more true. Trevor has the point down, though. This rules change should compel players to seek balls that don’t go as far in an effort to gain better control from the ball in the rough. Instead of relying on the club, they’ll have to sacrifice something from their golf ball. Immelman also is right that course setups will have to change in response to the rule change.

Dick Rugge, you dog you! I had a feeling something was up when Dawson let the cat out of the bag at the Open Championship, but we have grooves regulation from the R&A and USGA announced today.

First, from the USGA site:

The United States Golf Association (USGA) today announced revisions to the Rules of Golf, placing new restrictions on the cross sectional area and edge sharpness of golf club grooves.

The revisions are designed to restore the challenge of playing shots to the green from the rough by reducing backspin on those shots. The initial focus of the new rules will be competitions involving highly skilled professional golfers and will have little impact on the play of most golfers.

Much better worded than what the R&A had to say:

The R&A has today announced revisions to golf’s equipment Rules, which are designed to enhance the benefits of accuracy by making playing from the rough a more challenging prospect in future.

Now, about implementation:

The rules control the cross sectional area of grooves on all clubs, with the exception of drivers and putters, and limit groove edge sharpness on clubs with lofts equal to or greater than 25 degrees (generally a standard 5-iron and above).

The rules apply to clubs manufactured after January 1, 2010, the same year that the USGA will enforce the new regulations through a condition of competition for the U.S. Open, U.S. Women’s Open and U.S. Senior Open and each of their qualifying events. All USGA amateur championships will apply the new regulations through the condition of competition, after January 1, 2014.

The PGA Tour, the European PGA Tour, the LPGA, the PGA of America and the International Federation of PGA Tours have all indicated their support for the new regulations on grooves. Each of these organizations, as well as the Augusta National Golf Club, have told the USGA and The R&A, the game’s governing bodies, that they intend to adopt the condition of competition, applying the rules for their competitions, beginning on January 1, 2010.

We have a phase in approach which gives amateurs about six years to get their clubs in order. That seems pretty fair.

The announcement also has links to a PDF sent the manufacturers and a good pictorial of what grooves are good and which aren’t.

Reactions?

There is a NY Times piece on some research conducted by Mark Broadie – a Columbia University professor on the USGA’s handicap research team – that leads to the conclusion that the long game is more important than the short game.

Here are some of his findings:

• It is the long game that proves to be the biggest factor when examining the difference in scores between pros and amateurs and even between low- and high-handicap amateurs. If, for example, a PGA Tour player were available to hit shots for an amateur from 100 yards and in, or available to hit all the shots leading to the 100-yard mark, Broadie says the amateur would benefit the most from having the PGA player hit the long shots, not the short ones.
• Despite the belief that shorter hitters are more accurate off the tee than longer hitters, Broadie discovered the opposite: longer hitters also tend to be straighter hitters. “Better players are more skilled over all,” Broadie said. “They hit it farther and they have more consistent swings, so they’re more accurate, too.”
• It is often said that 60 to 65 percent of all shots are struck within 100 yards of the hole. Broadie agreed but noted that if you take out “gimme” putts of two and a half feet, the statistic has less meaning. Remove very short putts that are rarely missed, and shots from 100 yards or less account for only 45 to 50 percent of all shots. Eliminate putts from three and a half feet or less, and the figure drops to 41 to 47 percent.

It’s quite a contrarian point of view given that we have been claiming that putting has been winning the major championships. The Masters is all about putting, supposedly. The US Open is about putting in more recent years. The PGA Championship and Open Championships have it as a crucial factor.

The USGA claims that there is almost no correlation between winning on the PGA Tour and driving accuracy. I have produced articles that reach the same conclusion. The implication behind that truth is that we should regulate how the ball plays from the rough because distance and accuracy really do not matter all that much – therefore, we need to regulate the approach shot.

But, what if this is a rock solid finding? It would imply, then, that distance and accuracy do matter, right? If distance and accuracy do matter, but the data suggest that accuracy doesn’t matter, then does ONLY distance matter? (That’s a stretch, I know.)

Still, at the end of this, I am left wondering whether we should be regulating the golf ball for distance because it seems then that it has serious implication on success in the game.

David Fay was part of a press conference with Mike Davis and others from the USGA at Interlachen. Finally, someone asked about grooves and what in the world is going on with them and the regulation.

Q. David, could we get an update on the groove situation? Wasn’t that due for some sort of roll out in January, I think, in theory? Has there been any developments on that front or are we going to have to all change irons?

DAVID FAY: The latest update is there’s no update. We are still on track, we hope. There are a number of components that we have to get everything resolved. A number of — and we’re moving ahead on that. But to give you a timetable at this time, it would be premature.

As you could expect, we are not going for bifurcation between the governing bodies and it is nice to hear the USGA reassure us of that. I think Fay’s response is a window into the problems, though, challenging the change. The manufacturers push back, Peter Dawson keeps butchering Open rota courses in the interim (and LOVES it!), etc. It’s tough to get the stars to align.

Jerry Potter has a piece in USA Today about golf ball technology and what it is able to do – at least in theory – for players, particularly professionals. This probably comes on the heels of the blatant shout out to TaylorMade by Sergio Garcia in the trophy presentation ceremony following the Players Championship. Interesting, though, that the piece also comes after the R&A has basically indicated that it will be taking a pass on grooves for the time being for a variety of unnamed factors. Speculation includes difficulty enforcing the rules, threat of a lawsuit, insatiable appetite for lengthening golf courses, and a general unwillingness to change the rules.

As you may or may not know, the European Tour recently solicited responses from their players about proposed grooves regulation via questionnaire. In effect, the Tour wanted to know if players would modify their playing habits if grooves were regulated.

Then, as it turns out, the R&A really does not appear interested in grooves regulation after all. (Or drug testing, or much of anything else except blowing up almost every hole in the Open rota.)

So, with grooves regulation in doubt and in limbo, it might be worth it to ask Tour players how they feel about rolling back the golf ball. I don’t care how they feel about the move so much as how it would impact their games.

Here’s my survey:

• Would it cause them to try to hit more fairways?
• Would they hit driver more often off of the tee to gain distance lost by the roll back?
• Would they do just the opposite to put the ball in the fairway more often?
• Is it a deterrent to be lax about hitting the fairway if you have to hit a mid iron instead of a short iron into a PGA Tour green?
• Do you subscribe to the philosophy of “hit it as hard as you can, find it, and hit it again?”

Let’s get some answers!