New Grooves Rule

[starretj]

Since last year there has been a lot of discussion on the new grooves rule and now with the Michelson/McCarron debate, there is a lot of talk again. Personally, I like the rule. I don't think that the rule by itself is enough, but I think it is a good start.
The reason I like the rule is I believe that it brings the flyer back into play and that it allows for courses to not have to grow the rough as deep to be effective. Most of the younger golfers now have no idea what a flyer even is. Now days, my only concern is can I get enough club on the ball to get it to come out decent or is it just going to come out soft. Not really a lot of decision making going on with this situation. When the flyer becomes a possibility again, now a lot of different scenarios come into play and the decision making becomes more complex.
Anyway, just wanted to hear some opinions especially from those of us that have been around the game awhile.

[gmbtempe]

I hate the rule because only .001% of golfers are professionals which is who this is aimed at.

How has scoring changed to pre-1990 on the Tour? It has not changed. Why? Well the trouble around the greens on many of these new courses is much tougher than on the older courses so getting up and down is more difficult. The superintendents now use all kinds of tricks to thicken up the grass around the greens, such as special fertilizer. I understand they want to put a premium on driving but I highly doubt Tiger and Phil would not be the best players if it was pitch and putt. I think the same players are going to continue to win, they wont hit less drivers.

Now for the the 99.9% of us who are playing into these new modern courses with thick ruff everywhere, well I think we need all the help we can get. Its also very confusing, can you post scores with non conforming clubs? Can you play in Club and City championships?

Now McCarron is a total tool and it was very unfortunate he called other players cheating who clearly are within the rules. He should be taking his bullshit to the Tour or USGA, not to the camera. If he says he does not like it thats one thing, you don't call someone a cheater when they clearly are not.

[starretj]

I guess one of my points is that they wouldn't have to trick up the courses with thick rough with the new grooves. I believe that a lot of the maintenance costs could come way down. They could quit watering as much, especially around the greens, and in the rough.

I do agree that I hate that they implemented the rules for only the pros and top amateurs. I know that there would be a tremendous uproar if everyone had to get clubs with conforming grooves, but I just think that it makes the game more fair and fun and helps keep the costs down for coarse maintenance while putting back some of the coarse management and shotmaking skills that used to be required.

[gmbtempe]

I tell you what is going to be interesting, at Augusta it might be an over par score that wins, I know Phil won at -6 or so a few years ago and there were only a handful of people under par...going to be interesting watching some of those pitches on those greens from the rough, remember there was no rough previously.

I don't think they are going to change the course setups, it will just lead to lower scores winning, and thats fine, just not as entertaining.

[Richie3Jack]

Depends on the weather at Augusta. I honestly don't think the groove rule effects the scores one iota...particularly at Augusta where the rough isn't very thick.

Zach Johnson won his Masters with V-Grooves and stated the following year in a clinic held by Nicklaus (and Nicklaus agreed with him) that he didn't like the idea behind square grooves because he felt if it created more spin, that could create more side spin as well and that could lead to an errant shot. Zach also stated that if he really needed spin, then he felt he could create that spin with his technique.

They need to attack the ball, IMO although they won't because there are too many golf ball makers these days. I guess I would put rules in place where the ball and the drivers and shafts won't go any further than it does now. That way the OEM's have no case and that most importantly we can avoid rendering good golf courses obsolete because they are not long enough for the new ball.

Then from there they need to attack the design of the course in majors. I think we all want to see the driver being used and I think we all agree that a long ball hitter should be rewarded if they hit a driver fairly accurate and long. But we need to get away from that golfer who is super long and misses off the tee badly and makes out okay because they missed the drive so bad that they aren't in trouble anymore or they have such a short club into the green it's not much of an issue. More trees, thicker rough and possibly resorting to creating O.B. stakes on holes with other fairways that run parallel to it.

IMO, the big mistake golf made was how they went about 'Tiger proofing' courses. All they did was lengthen the holes and take shorter, but much more accurate golfers out of the game and basically made it a bomber's game, but didn't allow the bombers to shoot ridiculously low numbers. It didn't 'embarrass' Augusta because the scores were reasonable, but it didn't 'Tiger Proof' the course by any means either.

And while I love Bethpage and actually love the crowds there, I thought it was quite embarrassing to see how they designed the course which seemed to be set up in a blatant fashion to see either Tiger or Phil win.

Golf really needs to promote more golfers not named Tiger and Phil. They are ultra popular and don't need any help. By making courses that suit their game I think that golf winds up making the pool of player's that can win shrink and thus shrink the popularity of the game. I really question if a guy like Hogan could have survived in today's game and if that would've been the case, the world of golf would have never discovered a man that had a tremendous following.




3JACK

[gmbtempe]

A couple points, we are mostly talking about wedges here, as Phil said he has been playing V grooves in all his clubs but the wedges because he spun it to much, so its really from 120 and in or so that it makes a difference.

The tiger proofing of courses was absolutely silly as it just took shorter hitters out of the equation.

Who do you think is under promoted in the game? When Stricker was in Hawaii they were hyping him as much as they could. I think part of the problem is what makes people take notice is doing things others just don't do, and doing it with style. 90% of the tour acts like robots out there, they have little care about the fans, and most of them can't do anything to make the average person go "wow".

I guess the groves will lead to more three woods off the tee, maybe more lay ups, less brilliant saves, and maybe a guy like Brian Gay can win the open, just not sure thats the best thing for the PGA tour which is why they crafted these rules.

[Richie3Jack]

I'm not a big fan of Phil, but I just stick up for him because I can't deny that I think the rule is silly and if I thought the square grooves gave me a legal advantage I would be buying some Pings off of eBay as well. But, I have no doubt in my mind that I'll hit a newly designed wedge with V-Grooves out a rough better than the old Ping Eye 2 wedge which had a ton of bounce and looked like a children's plastic club.

This whole thing with the Ping Eye 2 wedges isn't new! I knew a few guys older than me that were playing mini-tours that were looking everywhere for the Ping Eye 2 wedges back in the mid-90's. Then they realized that they were better off hitting a better designed wedge with V-Grooves.

As far as promoting and marketing the players I'm just more for promoting as many players possible instead of throwing their eggs into 1 or 2 or 3 baskets and more importantly, promoting the younger players.

Quiros is a guy hardly known. Even if he plays the European Tour, we should know him better. But I get the feeling he won't be marketed unless he wins a ton of tournaments or a Major.

Anthony Kim, Sean O'Hair, Lucas Glover (the guy just won the US Open for cryin' out loud), Watney, etc.

I think a lot of it has to do with The Golf Channel and Golf Magazines as well. Instead of gushing over Tiger every chance they get, perhaps give that chance to spotlight other young players.

I also don't think you will ever see golfers using more 3-woods off the tee because they are afraid of a possible flier out of the rough. I also don't think that's good for the PGA Tour or the game. They just need to not let technology allow the golf ball to go any further than it is now and take away golfer's still being rewarded for hitting very long, but very errant tee shots.

Even Yoda said that he felt bombers should be rewarded for their lenght off the tee if they are reasonably accurate. So it's not like people such as myself want to screw over the bombers, we just want some modicum of accuracy off the tee.




3JACK

[gmbtempe]

I just think this was a half cocked attempt....for example I have seen Phil use that club a few times this week and judging by the results its performing like a plastic children's toy....and he has hit like 10 fairways in three rounds and is still right in with a chance. Its going to make a difference on a few shots for these guys, the best players are still going to win, the longest hitters are going to still win more than the shorter hitters, its been like that for a very long time.

Thats why the rule is silly, it might take away a few good shots but I think the grooves do help the amatuer players for 30 to 100 yards plus the confusion, what did they gain?

Now the ball is a different story, but that would really change things and could penalize the longer hitter, I mean they could come up with a ball that would do that, make it so that the most accurate players would win a heck of a lot more but that certainly would not be to the benefit of anyone, the pga, the fans, the history of the game.

[Richie3Jack]

My opinion is that the the USGA wanted to appeal to somebody or something and went after the wrong thing. Maybe they still harbor a grudge over Karsten Solheim after all of these years, even though he's no longer with us.

I can understand that sentiment given a company was allowed to basically dictate what the rules were, but the USGA had nobody to blame but themselves for allowing the original square grooves to be used in tournament play and then Karsten wanting to sue the USGA after he just manufactured and sold a ton of clubs with square grooves in them.

So, I think they wanted to appease somebody or something w/o having to face another lawsuit, so grooves were their best bet.

They really blew it with the golf ball because they could've curbed the distance on the golf ball back in the late 80's and early 90's when basically only Dunlop and Titleist were the main golf ball sellers and probably would not have to worry about a thing. But now with Callaway, Taylor Made, Bridgestone, Srixon, and others on the golf ball train, that probably won't happen.

Plus, there's a lot of arrogance on the USGA's part as well. I attended a seminar with a member of the USGA speaking and when it was Q&A time I asked about the ball and restricting it from flying further and he rebutted that essentially there's not much more technology can really do to a golf ball.

That was back in '97 or '98 (can't recall exactly when).

I think my main message isn't getting accurate but short players winning more or penalizing the bomber. It's just greatly reducing the chances of the player who hits a lot of errant shots off the tee. Somebody may bomb it deep and only hit 50% of their fairways, but if they are hitting it into a first cut of rough, provided the 1st cut of rough is not most of the rough, then I would have no problem with them having the advantage. That's 'reasonably accurate' and a lot different from missing the fairway so bad that you're in another fairway and still have a shot at the green as long as you can hit over some trees. That to me is ridiculous.

And I think it would be great for the game. Golf ratings, for the most part were way up in the late 80's and early 90's than they are today unless Tiger is involved on Sunday. I think that was because there was a more interesting dynamic of pitting short but accurate vs. long and more inaccurate players vs. the 'jack of all trades, master at none' type of players.

I will leave with this before I go to bed. I remember watchng a preview of the Masters and I believe it was in 1988 where they were talking about why the Masters was the greatest tournament in golf.

Not because of the 'Sunday Charges', the brilliant course design, the history, etc.

But because basically any type of game *could* win the Masters. The shorter, but more accurate hitter could play it and the bomber would have the big advantage off the tee.

That's certainly not the case now. I still love the Masters and Augusta, but most of the time it's going to be won by a bomber, regardless of how accurate off the tee they are.





3JACK

[pavaveda]

Jan 31, 2010 1:54:49 GMT -5 Richie3Jack said:

I think my main message isn't getting accurate but short players winning more or penalizing the bomber.

But Rich, I realize that Tiger gets away with this, but do we not see a lot of players who don't? Bubba Watson, J. B. Holmes, etc? I really like Bubba, watching him drive the ball is sight to behold, but it was almost unbearable to watch him a couple of weeks ago in Hawaii (when he was paired with Daly). He was all over the place.

[Richie3Jack]

I am pointing out all bombers like this. Bubba, Vijay, Holmes, Phil, etc. I just like the dynamic of the golfer who is short (disadvantage) and accurate (advantage) versus the golfer who is long (advantage) and not as accurate (disadvantage). I believe that makes a much more interesting dynamic than a bunch of long and not accurate golfers competing against each other.




3JACK

[dodger]

What is bad about the game today is the requirement for the average length players to have to play perfectly in order to win. Trevino, Irwin, Hubert Green, Larry Nelson, Lanny Wadkins and John Mahaffey are major winners in the 1970's who would have a heck of a time competing today. They controlled the golf ball, as it was designed that way. Longer hitters had an advantage only if they hit it straight. The tour and USGA need to come up with a competition ball, period. The groove is such a minor issue with little effect on the game. 7500 yard courses are ridiculous, no doubt someone will come up with a ball that can travel even farther. Pro baseball outlaws metal bats, a standard issue ball for competition at the tour and USGA level would remove the emphasis on the long bomb.

[gmbtempe]

So most of the year is finished, not sure the groove rule is doing anything as I suspected, its hurting the guy who has trouble spinning it, you and me, these pro's its just not a big deal.

[kamandi]

Aug 3, 2010 22:35:04 GMT -5 gmbtempe said:

So most of the year is finished, not sure the groove rule is doing anything as I suspected, its hurting the guy who has trouble spinning it, you and me, these pro's its just not a big deal.

Not just that .... Ishikawa 58, JB 60, Appleby 59, Goydos 59, Stricker 60 ... McIlroy 62 at the Open and Quail Hollow.

It's really the distance engineering of the golf ball and the golf clubs that make it easier for a pro to mount an assault on an "defenseless" golf course.

[Richie3Jack]

I think Golf Magazine showed that these guys are having no issue getting up and down compared to last year and pretty much all of the stats are the same. The driving distance is down a bit, but the fairway accuracy is up so slightly that it's rather negligible and people forget that we had some rough weather this winter/spring, causing the distance to go down.

It's not something that really effects me and to be honest, I do not think too much about backspin on the course.






3JACK