Grooves took the hit
An interview on Golf.com with Dick Rugge, Senior Technical Director of the United State Golf Association, revealed a couple of interesting facts amid the criticism of the change in the allowable configuration of grooves in irons 25 degrees and higher loft.
Rugge says the USGA doesn’t like the idea of two sets of rules, one for “elite golfers” and one for the rest of us, however it was necessary in the case of grooves to soften the change for non-elite players. In essence postponing implementation of the V-groove replacing the U- or box grooves until 2024 for everyone but tour players and those few amateurs that play in USGA competitions gave us two sets of rules but having one set of rules is still desirable.
He did not address the obvious fact every golfer will buy a new set of irons in the next 14 years thus making them play with irons of lesser performance…just like the elite players.
He confirmed box grooved irons had decreased the need to drive the ball in the fairway – box grooves have been around for more than 20 years since the Ping Golf law suit. Looking at the situation the Association felt the game had changed so much with the advent of driver clubheads of titanium with graphite shafts hitting the solid core balls ever farther, something had to be done.
Speaking of law suits, rolling back groove cross section thus hurting performance from long grass, is probably the only thing they realistically could have promulgated without a scream from both players and club makers. Can you imagine Titleist giving up the Pro V1? Or how about TaylorMade discarding the Tour Burner? Not likely without a heck of a fight. So grooves took the hit.
Rugge also talked about rolling back the performance of balls and clubs.
“Strictly based on their potential to change the game, two other rollbacks could be considered—reducing golf ball distance and reducing clubhead size. However, in both cases, a rollback would impact virtually every golfer, not just the very best players, so we have no plans to roll back either.”
“… if driving distance once again began to increase significantly, there may be a need to consider changes to the rules governing clubs or balls. It’s purely hypothetical, but there could also come a time when environmental issues place such significant burdens on building or maintaining golf courses that reducing distance could become a necessity.”
Sounds like he setting up the case to rationalize just what he said is not needed. It certainly doesn’t let me sleep any more soundly.
