PING Wants Groove Rule Change Abandoned

So nice to see the manufacturers agreeing on something. Just a little late, no?

PING Chairman & CEO John Solheim calls for new groove rule to be abandoned, not delayed

June 29, 2009; Phoenix Arizona: PING Chairman & CEO John Solheim, who has adamantly opposed the USGA and R&A New Groove Rule since first proposed February 27, 2007, released the following statement today from the company’s Phoenix, Arizona headquarters:

"The new groove rule harms the game and golfers and should be dropped. The recent uproar about it from PGA Tour players demonstrates this fact,” said Solheim. “However, the PGA Tour's proposal to delay implementing the rule is not a solution. You can't turn a bad idea into a good one by waiting an extra year to adopt it. We hope everyone who cares about the future of this game keeps that simple concept in mind."

A summary of Solheim’s concerns that were shared with the USGA and R&A since the New Groove Rule was proposed is attached.

Here goes...bandwith is cheap!

SUMMARY OF PING’S OPPOSITION TO THE NEW GROOVE RULE

Set forth below is a summary of some of the points PING made to the USGA and the R&A during the time they were evaluating whether to adopt the new groove rule:

1. It is simply wrong to place the potentially biased concerns of a small number of Tour professionals above the needs of tens of millions of amateurs. Why are amateurs being needlessly harmed and told to reach into their pockets to pay for an alleged problem that the USGA believes applies to just the PGA Tour? The PGA Tour has undergone tremendous economic growth and success over the past decades, in concert with golf club innovation. Innovation is one of the oldest and most important traditions of golf. Professionals who get their clubs for free should not be causing the rulemaking bodies to force amateurs to buy new clubs.

Well of course we know that's totally misleading, but continues...

2. Once the rulemaking bodies approve a golf club, it should remain approved.

Golf needs respected and responsible rule makers. Respect is earned -- and it can easily be lost. Tens of millions of golfers purchased hundreds of millions of irons and wedges based on the fact that the rulemaking bodies said these clubs conformed to the rules. It simply is not fair to say to the golfing public, "You know those clubs you bought, the ones we said conformed to the rules? Well, we changed our mind. Sorry about that, and you will need to get some new ones." This not only harms amateur golfers, but it damages the respect many have for the USGA and the R&A.

Golfers respect the USGA and R&A?

3. The skill of driving accuracy continues to be richly rewarded. In proposing this roll back of the Rules, the USGA stated: "The skill of driving accurately has become a much less important factor in achieving success while playing [on the PGA Tour] than it used to be...." That statement is not correct. The data from recent US Opens and from

PGA Tour events (including its improved ShotLink data - which was ignored by the USGA) establishes that there remains a significant penalty from landing in the rough. In fact, the USGA is able to define, and obtain, the level of penalty ("Cost of Rough") it desires through its course set-up. Any tournament is free to do the same. ShotLink data also establishes that accurate drives at PGA Tour events continue to result in the ball ending up much closer to the hole after the second shot (a true measure of an accurate shot). In short, there continues to be a significant penalty from hitting into the rough, even for the best players in the world.

I'm so glad Max Behr isn't alive to read this.

4. In targeting grooves, the rulemaking bodies ignored numerous changes that likely impacted the game over the past 30 years. It is nearly impossible to conclude that a single variable (grooves) caused any observed changes to the game at the PGA Tour level over the past twenty five years. To attempt to do so requires that you ignore all of the other changes to the game since 1984 (the year square grooves were allowed), including the following: course conditioning changes, driver improvements (such as large-headed drivers made with exotic materials), shaft improvements, improved golf balls and golf ball cover materials, improved agronomy, increased athleticism, improved player conditioning, improved player training aids, launch angle fitting and even improved coaching. As an example, tremendous course-conditioning changes have occurred on the PGA Tour since the 1970's. According to historical PGA Tour Course Conditioning Guidelines, since the 1970's the length of the primary rough has been reduced by as much as 60%. The height of the intermediate rough (also described as the first cut), is now as short as some fairways used to be. The grass on the fairways & greens is also shorter. If the USGA/R&A are concerned whether PGA Tour pros find it too easy to hit out of the rough, why didn't they focus on changes to the PGA Tour's course set-up guidelines? If the PGA Tour's set-up guidelines were reviewed, why weren't they mentioned in any of the reports? It is unfair to make amateurs buy new clubs, just so PGA Tour pros can continue to play courses without the deeper roughs yesterday's pros were forced to tackle.

Oh that's good stuff there. Roughs are down! The boys have it easy. Sadly, that might actually click with some.

5. The "money list/driving accuracy" rank correlation analysis cited by the USGA to justify its change in grooves is fundamentally flawed. The downward pattern in this correlation cannot be tied to the introduction or increased use of square grooved irons. We believe it is more closely linked to PGA Tour player behavior than the introduction of any particular equipment innovation. We undertook extensive statistical analysis of publicly available PGA Tour data. We quickly discovered the number of tournaments played annually by the top 10 money earners has been gradually decreasing since about the mid-1990’s. In fact, the number of PGA Tour events with 3 or more of the top 10 money earners in the field has dramatically decreased since the 1980's. The decreasing trend in participation by the top money earners at PGA Tour Events closely mirrors the decreasing trend in the money list/driving accuracy rank correlations, and could be the cause of it. All of this was demonstrated, graphically and otherwise, in my letters to the USGA.

Now that is interesting.

6. The USGA has not demonstrated that any change in any PGA Tour statistic is due to grooves. If the rule making bodies believe that grooves are wreaking havoc on the PGA Tour, why is it that among the hundreds of statistics kept by the PGA Tour, no one has ever deemed it worthwhile to identify the specific grooves each individual PGA Tour Pro is using in his irons and wedges. If grooves truly are a problem, it seems obvious that someone would gather and analyze this easily obtainable data before telling tens of millions of golfers the USGA is reversing its prior approval of hundreds of millions of golf clubs. The failure to do so suggests there may be something else going on here.

Yeah the ball flies too far!

7. What happens to hundreds of millions of "Used" golf clubs - which have always been an important asset in golf. I believe it is important to many golfers, particularly PING customers, that their used clubs maintain a great trade-in value, often for twenty or more years. I am concerned that declaring that hundreds of millions of previously approved clubs will later be non-conforming will impact the resale value of those clubs. It is wrong to diminish the value of these previously approved clubs purchased by hardworking men and women simply because a few Tour pros (who get their clubs for free) seem to complain that "golfers today have it too easy." I do not know of a single golfer who quit playing the game because "it became too easy." This new rule will also harm the tradition of passing clubs to children and grandchildren. Used clubs are also an affordable way for many beginners to give the game a try. These concerns may not resonate with some, but they mean a lot to many who love this game and want to pass the passion for golf on to the next generation. Again, are we throwing all of that away simply so the PGA Tour can keep its rough shorter than it used to be?

Hey, I still have a set of Ping Eye2's in the closet John. Care to buy them from me?

Finchem Teleconference Scheduled

Just reading between the lines here, but I'd say someone is pretty confident that he has the votes to uphold the new groove condition of competition. Otherwise, why schedule a highly unusual media teleconference to talk about just another policy board meeting?

TELECONFERENCE:
PGA TOUR Commissioner Tim Finchem, Policy Board update

Ponte Vedra Beach, FL June 29, 2009

Members of the media are invited to take part in a teleconference with PGA TOUR Commissioner Tim Finchem on Tuesday, June 30, during which he will provide an update from that morning’s PGA TOUR Policy Board meeting.

Date:
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Time:
12 p.m. (Eastern Time)

Groovy Goings On...

...assuming you like tales of big egos, big money and big power plays.

The PGA Tour Policy Board votes Tuesday whether to adopt the 2010 condition of competition requiring the use of new grooves. As Alex Miceli reported Friday, three of four player votes are likely going to say no to adopting the condition for January play.

That means in order to uphold the PGA Tour's original stance in support of the USGA/R&A groove spec change, the five non-player policy board reps would have to overrule the player directors. Most insiders believe this has never occurred in the history of the policy board.

Because it's Congressional week and I try not to contemplate the idea of watching golf played there, let's consider the possible votes and ensuing fallout should the policy board postpone the implementation until 2011:

• Postponement would be a hit to Tim Finchem's perceived power or at least, the assumption that he has control of the policy board. Finchem has made several public statements in support of the groove change. Having to spin a reversal at this late date will test Ponte Vedra's For Immediate Release wordsmiths.

• A blow to the USGA/R&A. For obvious reasons. They'll have to retreat from their 2010 implementation at the U.S. Open and can expect to face a full assault, and perhaps even legal action. Bomb and Gouge summed it up better than I in this post.

• Postponement would be a major victory for Titleist and Wally Uihlein. Several players have told me that master wedge designer Bob Vokey has not yet come up with a replacement groove configuration to his and Titleist's liking. Couple that ongoing research with Acushnet not feeling it will have enough time to properly develop a ball they believe is to their standards and soft enough to satisfy players who would be shifting to less-helpful grooves come January, and you begin to understand why this has become an issue (and why there was Ian Poulter's recent Twitter whining).

• Postponement could be a major blow to the image of PGA Tour pros depending on how it's spun. Shoot, some have already likened this to golf's version of steroids. If the players need more time to prepare for the changeover, I think they'll be shocked at the apathy and even hostility they face from serious golf fans. Media types have been asking since last fall what players were doing to prepare and most had not given the subject any thought. Curiously, the Nike guys seem very prepared and many of the more thoughtful players have done their homework. (Cink here, Woods here, Immelman/Mickelson/Furyk here, Ogilvy here.)

• Tough questions would be raised about the policy board's motives. The three players leaning toward a no vote all play the Titleist ball. Ironically, all three stand to benefit from the rule change based on the USGA's theory of forcing a softer ball into the hands of players. David Toms, Brad Faxon and Zach Johnson aren't the longest hitters in the world but all are respected for shotmaking and short game prowess. They will be expected to make convincing arguments about the strength of the USGA's research and implementation if they hope to deflect inevitable criticism. Doable, but also a lot of headache and annoyance they don't need.

• A huge setback for the new groove configuration. Many behind-the-scenes types roll their eyes at this latest chapter in the grooves saga because they insist that the policy board would only be postponing the inevitable. I don't agree. This is bifurcation and I've never understood how the manufacturers would allow this precedent to be set without a fight. We discussed this several times (including here, here). If the board postpones, I predict that over the next year we will see the USGA's research scrutinized, attacked and we'll witness an all-out PR assault on the decision. You'll hear questions--some very legitimate--about just how many players were interviewed, how many were involved in testing, how wet newspaper shreddings simulate rough, how bifurcation is good for the sport and how exactly the USGA concluded that driving accuracy declined because of grooves instead of say, 22 yard wide landing areas.

If the board adopts the condition of the competition, it's a clear victory for Finchem, the USGA, R&A and fans of the flyer lie. Consider how many golf courses and tournaments were already improved this year by having less rough in anticipation of the rule change (along with common sense kicking in). More of that starting in 2010 is good for the PGA Tour, even better if the less-rough mentality filters down to the everyday game.

If you are in favor of regulating distance for the safety, function and interest of golf architecture, you have to love the equipment rollback precedent set by the groove rule change. But big money is at stake here and I'd be shocked if certain manufacturers go quietly.

At least after Tuesday night we'll know who the most powerful man in golf is.

"Who actually runs golf?"

John Huggan on the possibility that the PGA Tour won't adopt the groove rule change:

When it comes to the rules, the book says it is the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews and the United States Golf Association. But you have to wonder sometimes.

Take the recent news that the PGA Tour, urged on by equipment manufacturers, is unlikely to adopt the new regulations for grooves on wedges come 1 January. The likes of Titleist, TaylorMade and Callaway are claiming they can't make clubs and balls the leading players will be happy with in time to meet the deadline. Aye right.

Verdict: Meet golf's real supremo, Wally Uihlein, chairman and CEO of Titleist.

Golfweek: Policy Board Leaning Toward Groove Postponement

Alex Miceli reports that three members of the four-man PGA Tour Policy Board are leaning toward a vote to delay 2010's condition of competition change requiring the use of new grooves.

But with the start date looming ever closer, numerous PGA Tour players have expressed concern that they don’t have sufficient time to test clubs with the new grooves – nor to fully comprehend the impact they’ll have on their games.

It's June. That means they've had five more months, no?

Now, if the players are questioning the USGA's research or the tiered implementation or the backdoor bifurcation, I've long wondered why they and their affliliated manufacturers weren't more skeptical. What took them so long?

Some equipment manufacturers also have complained about the hardship they’ll incur, especially during a challenging economy, to meet the original deadline. They say there are significant costs associated with the new grooves, including more expensive manufacturing processes.

I understand that most of the people who will be required to play the new grooves get their clubs free. Therefore the companies won't recoup costs to make these new clubs. But who lobbied for the right to give out free stuff to anyone with a pulse?

And if there is a massive increase in the cost of manufacturing, then isn't a mere postponement only going to make this an issue again in 2011?

But other companies such as Ping say they already have made the necessary business changes and insist it would be unfair to delay the rule change.

Nice irony, eh?

Cink declined to discuss how he would vote, but Faxon and Johnson told Golfweek they were leaning toward delaying the groove change. Toms could not be reached for comment.

The positions taken by the player directors historically have had significant influence on policy board decisions. But it is possible the five other members, including PGA of America president Jim Remy, could overrule a player-voting bloc.

I don't believe that's ever happened? First time for everything!

Groove Measuring Methodology And Timing

One of the main PGA Tour/manufacturer gripes with the USGA/R&A groove rule change--now endangered for 2010 implementation--deals with the assertion that the USGA fell behind in getting manufacturers an appropriate measuring tool to determine if irons are conforming.

I know this isn't the sexiest topic, but it is important to understand how this process played out so that should the PGA Tour delay the groove condition of competition due to manufacturer concerns, we at least know how much time they had to prepare. So I asked Dick Rugge of the USGA for his response to the claim of not enough time:

1. The August 5, 2008 Notice to Manufacturers regarding the new groove rule implementation included a detailed explanation of how grooves would be measured.

2. The August 5, 2008 Notice to Manufactures also included the following information: “Measurement of grooves for cross sectional area and groove edge radius can be made with the same tracing equipment that the USGA has used for a number of years. The USGA may also make use of additional measuring equipment for this purpose in the future. A field test to enable groove measurements on-site has been developed. The protocol for this field test will be published in the near future.”

3. The ContourReader (that’s the “tracing equipment that the USGA has used for a number of years”) groove measurement procedure has been made available to those requesting it.

4. Both the USGA and the R&A have purchased a device from the Alicona company that utilizes a very sophisticated microscope to measure grooves. This has been considered our “gold standard” measurement device. That company has offered their equipment for sale to club manufacturers. The cost is high, so there will likely be a limited number of these in use.

5 We have developed a field test device which uses a flat-bed scanner to accurately record the groove cross-sectional shape. This device has been reviewed by PGA Tour rules official John Mutch, who is pleased with its function. This device will soon be made available to the Tours, and to other appropriate organizations, including manufacturers.

"Unfortunately, the only uncertainty in the game right now lies with who's in charge of it."

GolfDigest.com blogging duo Bethpage and Garden City kick around the power struggle over a groove rule condition of competition and ultimately determine that the USGA has handed over power to the PGA Tour and that the uncertainty over 2010 implementation has the USGA acting as a follower instead of a leader.

I can tell you this, though: The rule as currently written will not be a hardship for the playing of the game by average golfers in any meaningful way, shape or form. Not now, not in 2014, not in 2024, not ever. The rule as currently written does present the possibility for uncertainty in the minds of the best players in the game, however. Uncertainty (or as most of us know it, outright fear), I think, makes for a better game at the elite level.

Unfortunately, the only uncertainty in the game right now lies with who's in charge of it.

"If there are enough rumblings it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that we could not adopt the rule."

E. Michael Johnson and Mike Stachura's news story about the PGA Tour inching closer to a delay of the groove rule change includes some revealing quotes.

"Last night there was a conference call and we decided that it was too heated of an issue to decide on a conference call so we're going to wait until next week's board meeting to make a decision about it," said Stewart Cink, a member of the tour's policy board. "I would expect by Tuesday there will be some kind of an answer on it."

Then this from former policy board member Joe Ogilvie:

"They botched it and because they botched it, it won't be implemented in 2010," said Ogilvie. "I'd say there is a 90 percent chance it is not going to happen. I think they are going to have to [change the date]. I don't see it being adopted earlier than 2011."

So we are left with all sorts of questions as to why this has become an issue at the last minute.

The manufacturers have had some idea this was coming since August, 2006 and specs since August of 2008. Based on Twitter and interviews, players who have taken the initiative have had several months now to experiment with the new grooves.

The PGA Tour and Commissioner Finchem have been very consistent in stating that they support the USGA and R&A (here, here and here make a nice starting point for background on the tour's position and statements that certainly won't mesh with backing out of the 2010 date). But we also know from last week's USGA press conference that they are placing themselves at the mercy of the tour.

The "botching" referred to by Ogilvie seems to be with the confusing dates for implementation (2010, 2011, 2014, depending on who you are). I find it humorous that the PGA Tour, which hasn't done a whole lot of worrying about the every day game, is suddenly worried about the plight of the average golfer?

We know from Ian Poulter that this timing confusion is an issue to Acushnet family members, as is the dramatic difference in shotmaking ability. And we know from Stewart Cink that there will be a big difference, largely because players will have to move to a softer, spinning ball.

So if players convince the tour they won't be ready, they'll be branded pathetic, soft and spoiled.

If this is a manufacturing issue, as suggested, it would seem odd that these big, powerful, hi-tech manufacturers are unable to accommodate a rule change that will essentially impact certain sets of irons and their wedge lines. Manufacturers will take a hit to their tech savvy brands.

Unless we are not talking about multiple manufacturers here, but instead, just one company that doesn't feel it can retool its assembly line or perhaps doesn't feel it has a soft enough ball in the pipeline for circa 2010. Then we might see other manufacturers point that out and it could get ugly.

I'm just going to sit back and watch. Oh, and just for the last time, I swear, ask, wouldn't it have been so much easier to just change the ball?

"There's rumors floating around here this week that it may not even come into play."

From Greg Norman's chat with the working press Wednesday prior to the Senior PGA:

Q. When you were younger in your 20s and 30s you were obviously a great ball-striker, but always considered one of the best drivers of the golf ball. That was in the year of the persimmon heads. Has it changed a lot now? Do you think there's more guys who hit 70 percent plus in fairways hit because of equipment or back in the day that was a heck of a lot harder figure to reach?

GREG NORMAN: I think it's easier to hit the golf ball straighter now days. And the ball goes longer. No question. Is that -- that is technology. No question about it.

I think a great barometer, just to get off your question a little bit is, a great barometer is when the V grooves come into play next year. And I hope it does. There's rumors floating around here this week that it may not even come into play. But if the V grooves do come back into play, that will be a great barometer to see how good these players are with their touch and their feel and their imagination. And understanding that that ball, it looks like it's going to leap 40 yards extra off the club face, how do you play that?

That's going to be great to watch on television. Because that's, to me, is the art of understanding the game of golf. And understanding the spin of the golf ball. Not just a pure given fact if you hit it in the rough and I did it a couple times today on these firm greens, I'm in the rough, I know it's going to spin, I'm just going to open that club face up a little bit more and the ball comes down like an old dog lying by a fireplace. It just drops on the green.

Now that's not going to happen next year. So those are the type of things that actually help the better players distance themself from the average players. And I think that's why in my generation you saw such great shot makers out there, Trevino and like I said, Seve in a lot of ways, he hit phenomenal shots.

"There's going to be a break-in period"

E. Michael Johnson offers a short primer on the groove rule change and notes that many players are opting to wait until later in they year to even practice with them, something that has surprised me in conversations about the U-groove change. And apparently Jim Furyk agrees.

"I think it's a good idea in kind of getting players involved and saying, hey, don't wait till the end of year," said Jim Furyk. "This is something you want to get a hold of early on."

To that end, Furyk received some wedges with the conforming groove to test just prior to the WGC-CA Championship at Doral. Those who opt to wait, he said, might be in for a bit of a surprise.

"There's going to be a break-in period," said Furyk. "Some people will start January 1 with no issues and other guys, they are going to need some time to get used to it. But eventually, give it six months or whatever, and everyone is going to be on the same page."