Groove Change Clippings

/

Here's the announcement from the USGA if you missed it.

Doug Ferguson noted this in his story:

USGA officials said it was the first rollback in equipment since a brief experiment in the 1930s to reduce the weight of the golf ball. That was deemed ineffective, and the rule was scrapped.
Which looks minor really compared to this.

As for the pros using V-grooves in 2010 but other major amateur golf not having to conform until 2014, Steve Elling writes that "It's mildly akin to the use of aluminum bats in the amateur or college baseball ranks, versus the wooden bats of the pros. It's the same game, sort of, but it sure sounds different.

Or more succinctly defined another way, as Elling offers...
Frank Thomas, a former technical director at the U.S. Golf Association, was nibbling on a snack on Tuesday at the 90th PGA Championship when the change was broached. He wiped the crumbs from his chin and offered one word.
"Bifurcation," he said.
For the uninitiated, that's a red-letter term that means split and separate, and most assuredly not equal.
Not reported anywhere but nailing a vital point about course setup was Trevor Immelman:
I think they need to decide which way they want to go about running the game. I think you've either got to have the courses set up the way they are now, with extremely deep rough and 500 yard par-4s, which is the way they have it, which seems to be working fine. I mean, you know, nobody's blowing away these Major Championships shooting 15-, 20-under. So that seems to be a recipe that has worked over the last few years.
Or, you 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. Because at that point, you just are going to have players having just a lot of struggles out there with golf courses being too difficult. That's my opinion.
And this from Phil Mickelson was also not picked up in reports, but is nonetheless profound:
And one of the biggest issues I have with course setup is having the same penalty for everybody regardless of skill level, and that leads to the thickness of rough. If you have a ten-inch rough -- and I'm sorry a lot of people say five and a half inches or whatever the length is; everybody wedges out 80 yards into the fairway. It's the same penalty for everybody and so skill level is factored in there.
And I'm hoping that the course setups won't be like that, but they will be like the PGA TOUR has done this year and had a little bit more playable shot-making abilities, recovery shots, more integral part of the game from the rough on mis-hit tee shots.
So I kind of like it. But what's interesting for me is that this exact study was done with triple the data back in 1988, was given to the USGA, and it was disregarded, and now 20 years later, it's considered valid.
Again, I don't care, because I like the new rule change, but it just is funny to me how that -- the way the process worked out.
I assume this from Jim Furyk will be music to the USGA's ears...
I think that I might have a couple wedges in my bag that might be borderline or over the proposed limit, so I would have to pull that back.
And what that will do is it will make guys want to play a softer golf ball, and it probably doesn't go quite as far anymore, because they will want to have more control over that ball around the greens and with their wedges, where they score.
So I think all in all, it's probably going to be positive.

Thoughts On The Grooves Announcement

/

In announcing Tuesday's U-groove ban, the USGA and R&A accomplished something truly spectacular, unprecedented and frankly, impossible: they had people feeling sorry for the PGA of America.

I'll get to the good stuff about this rule change in another post, because for fans of strategic course architecture there could be some very exciting developments from this news. But momentarily, let's sit back and ponder at the utter lack of respect our fine governing bodies have shown their friends from Palm Beach, who have one week a year to shine and who have suppported the decision to ban U-grooves starting in 2010.

After dragging their feet so long, with R&A lollygaggery largely responsible for missing the initial announced timeline, how could anyone in these organizations say, oh, we must announce this on Tuesday of the PGA Championship?

Let's forget the disrespect shown to the PGA of America and consider this strictly from a practical perspective: you want to announce one of the biggest changes in the history of the rules at a time when people can digest the ramifications and give it full attention. With dwindling space devoted to golf in major media outlets, who in their right mind would want to compete with the year's final major?

Oh that's right, the R&A and USGA. Brilliant.

R&A Finally Acts On Grooves...To Preserve The Importance Of Rough!

/

Of course, the opening line of the press release is revolting on a level I can't begin to describe.

THE R&A ANNOUNCES NEW GOLF CLUB RULES
St Andrews, Scotland, 5 August 2008:  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.
Yes, yes, rough is vital to the game. Old Tom would have wanted it that way. Don't worry about building new tees on the New Course, just make sure that we can continue to line fairways with rough. Or, in the case of the Road Hole, just eliminate the fairway. That's a priority!  Anyway, carry on...
The new Rules will augment the existing limitations on grooves and will affect all clubs (with the exception of drivers and putters), with the new regulations limiting groove volume and groove edge sharpness.  Essentially, larger volume grooves have the ability to channel away more material, such as water or grass, similar to the tread on car tyres.  At the same time, sharper groove edges facilitate a better contact between club and ball, even in the presence of debris.
Both new regulations will apply to golf clubs with lofts greater than or equal to 25 degrees (generally a standard 5-iron and above) with only the rule limiting groove volume applying to clubs of lesser loft.
So a 3 or 4 iron could have...ah forget it.
The Rules will apply to all clubs manufactured after 1 January 2010.  Clubs manufactured prior to this date, which meet the current regulations, will continue to be regarded as conforming under the Rules of Golf until at least 2024.
Well, that's not going to cause the rush to Roger Dunn's that the manufacturers would have hoped for.
It is intended that the new Rules will be introduced as a Condition of Competition at top professional level from 1 January 2010 and at top amateur level and in other professional events from 1 January 2014.  The R&A and the USGA will introduce such a Condition of Competition at their respective championships in accordance with this schedule.  The world’s top professional tours for both men and women, and the organisers of golf’s major championships, have all indicated their support for the new groove regulations and their intention to implement the Condition of Competition in 2010.

At GolfDigest.com, Mike Stachura summarizes the news while USGA.org offers...no announcement as of 10:15 a.m. PST.

"Having to play V-grooves only would make me try to stay in the fairway more than I do today."

/

Beatnik and Gonzo over at GolfDigest.com pretty must shred to pieces the reported European Tour player questionnaire on grooves, then obtain the actual document and are largely validated in their skepticism. Still I was pleased to see they were asking players whether they thought the rule change would discourage flogging of tee shots.

 

"A rollback in equipment...would be a huge boon to the golf industry in my opinion."

/

Thanks to reader Mark for this Tom Kite interview from last week. He appeared with Steve Czaban, host "The First Team On Fox," a nationally syndicated Fox Sports Radio show.

After the usual small talk Czaban asked Kite if he's longer now than he was in his prime. Kite says he's about 10 yards longer now than at his peak.

Czaban then asks if this is a good thing. Kite's reply: 

A: No, it's very detrimental to the game. All you have to do is look all over the place and you can hear all of these comments about how the game is not growing. Why isn't the game growing? It takes too long to play golf. It's too expensive to play golf. Those are the two most comment things that are cited for why the game doesn't grow. Well it takes longer to play an 8,000 yard course than it does a 6,500 yard golf course. Why does it cost more? It takes more money to maintain an 8,000 yard course with wider fairways and wider golf course envelopes than a 6,500 yard course. The fact that architects are forced to design golf courses...to try to build a golf course that stands up to the technology and what does it do? It makes the courses more expensive, you need more land to build the courses on and consequently the game is more expensive and takes longer to play and those are the two reasons why everybody keeps saying the game is not growing.

A rollback in equipment, which probably will never happen, but a rollback in the metal woods, in the graphite shafts and specifically the ball, would be a huge boon to the golf industry in my opinion.

Q: Who out there right now is really leading the push for that.

Nobody. Nobody. Right now the manufacturers are the ones running the game. The USGA basically lost the war when they didn't stand up to Karsten Solheim on the square grooves issue years and years ago. They backed down, they basically said if you have money and have sharp attorneys, the USGA will back down and they have ever since. Unfortunately they and the R&A are the rulemaking bodies and it's not going to happen in my opinion.

Well, glad Tom's already picked up that Bobby Jones Award from the USGA.

Can they revoke those? Let's hope not.  

"That's a pretty good record of identification."

/
John Huggan appears to be the only writer who saw through R&A secretary/in-house architect Peter Dawson's presentation earlier this week. You know, the one where he explained how he was renovating 16 of 18 holes at Birkdale to fit the game that has move on somewhat.
As Dawson trawled through the various changes made to 16 of Birkdale's 18 holes (16!) in the decade since the game's most important championship last made the trip to Southport, it was hard to suppress an ever-increasing level of incredulity. Justifying those alterations with the kiss-off line that "golf has moved on somewhat since then", Dawson was careful not to mention the real reason why Birkdale has joined an ever-lengthening list of classic courses that have been stretched to within an inch of their boundary fences.

Using carefully chosen phrases like "challenge to the modern-day player" and "increased player capability," Dawson, not for the first time, disguised the fact that the current "programme of significant change" that is well under way at every Open venue has virtually nothing whatsoever to do with the players themselves and virtually everything to do with the collective and joint abrogation of responsibility by the R&A and the United States Golf Association when it comes to their (lack of) legislation on the modern golf ball. Had today's equipment been properly regulated over the last decade and a half, it is a safe bet that the likes of Augusta National and the Old Course at St Andrews, to name but two classic courses that have been forced to endure unnecessary change, would not have had to be screwed up to the extent they have been.
This is juicy about 2009 host Turnberry:
It was reported last week that the Ailsa course that will host next year's Open Championship will be "narrower, longer and tougher." To which the obvious response is: "why?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but on the three previous occasions in which the Ayrshire links has hosted the world's best golfers, the winner of the championship has been the world's best golfer at the time: Tom Watson in 1977, Greg Norman in 1986 and Nick Price in 1994. That's a pretty good record of identification.

Not only that, but every one of those Opens – in three very different weeks weather-wise – were events that have already lived long in the memories of those lucky enough to witness them. The first one, in fact, the so-called "Duel in the Sun" between Watson and Jack Nicklaus, was so good it transcended golf and became one of the great sporting occasions of the last 50 years.

So, tell me again, why is it that the course on which those great events were played is suddenly deemed inadequate, especially when the R&A, unlike their counterparts at the USGA, are forever claiming that the winning score is, to them, irrelevant?

How The R&A Got The Groove Rule Sacked?

/

E. Michael Johnson reports that the proposed rollback on grooves for competition is all but dead for 2009 and not looking good for 2010.

A call to the USGA last week for a status report on the proposal produced little in the way of news, as senior technical director Dick Rugge declined to comment on specifics -- except to say there was "no set timetable for a decision on grooves."

However, industry sources familiar with the situation tell Golf World the Condition of Competition as proposed is no longer on the table, meaning tour pros are likely to be able to use current grooves in 2009.

Meanwhile, USGA and R&A officials are set to meet again this month to discuss the groove proposal, with one industry insider characterizing the ruling bodies as still somewhat apart. "The USGA is ready to go, but the R&A believes the proposed rule is trying to do too much," said the source.
"Too much" to the R&A is defined as "any action whatsoever."
 

Meanwhile in this week's SI Golf Plus, PGA Tour pros were asked:

If the USGA bans U-grooves, will you sacrifice distance in favor of accuracy off the tee:

Yes: 25%

No: 75%

While I've never believed the U-groove change would impact player thinking off the tee, I do believe it would alter the aggressiveness of their approach shots and restore the importance of firm greens. Too bad the R&A does not agree.

"But it is clear that, like the rest of us, the St Andrews-based governing body has had enough."

/

dawson_26010t.jpgI finally had a chance to look over the press accounts of Peter Dawson's press conferences. Dawson offered something unprecedented in the history of golf's governing bodies: outlining architectural revisions to world class courses, all ideas of the R&A.

Knowing that anything architecture and nuanced is tough for the slingers to get their arms around, I was not surprised to read that they ran with the spin that R&A was not excessively lengthening rota courses. Nor was I expecting to find serious stories questioning the absurd notion of changing golf courses just so the R&A doesn't have to regulate equipment in any meaningful way.

I was, however, shocked to read that the R&A is on a mission to speed up play!

Dawson answered a simple question about slow play and a series of follow ups, eventually revealing that the topic had been added to the docket next time golf's suits convene to assure each other that golf in the Olympics will grow the sport and to pat each other on the back for working together on drug testing (which many of them resisted).

Check out the rave reviews for the R&A apparent determination to rid the game of slow play.

James Corrigan in the Independent:

Having watched in despair - not to mention boredom - as the final two-ball took five hours, 10 minutes to complete the final round of the Masters earlier this month, the R&A realised something must be done about what Peter Dawson, their chief executive, agreed was rapidly turning into “a cancer in golf“.

Douglas Lowe in the Herald:

The R&A have now placed slow play on the agenda for the meeting of the World Golf Foundation immediately after the Players' Championship next month in Florida. The foundation, comprising key power brokers in the game, was set up 14 years ago to help growth of the game while preserving traditions.

Iain Carter writing for the BBC:

And it is clear the R&A will be following a similar path as it sets about dealing with the biggest evil in the game at the moment, slow play.

But it is clear that, like the rest of us, the St Andrews-based governing body has had enough.

Had enough? He answered a question!

Richard Williamson in the Liverpool Daily Post:

The R&A is also keen to help cut down on the problem of slow play in the sport.

Speaking at Royal Birkdale, venue for this summer's Open Championship, Dawson urged a worldwide crackdown on the snails who are making golf less attractive and driving people away from the sport.

It's touching to read these breathless accounts of a topic that only came up after tough questioning. It's also odd to find that not one of the writers considered that just possibly the R&A and USGA's lax work on equipment regulation might have led to changes in the game that force the redesign of courses, or dare I say, play to slow down because players are waiting for greens to clear.

But slow players need not worry. If the R&A is on the case, you can bet any significant proposals will be tabled for years to come. 

"The last time the Open Championship was here at Birkdale was ten years ago in 1998, and as we know, the game has moved on somewhat since then"

/

Yesterday we learned that R&A chief spinster Peter Dawson was proud of the organization's revamping of 2009 Open host Turnberry. Tuesday the governing body of golf outside North American proudly announced  changes to 16 out of 18 holes at 2008 Open host Royal Birkdale, including a narrowing of many landing areas.

Hey, it never gets windy over there, you can tighten those babies all day long and no one will notice!

Tuesday Dawson sat down for two press conferences to further discuss the changes and other issues in the game. The only thing more astonishing than his answers was the lack of one decent follow up question asking why the R&A is going around to nearly all of its rota courses and making changes! So much for the demanding British press.

Here's Dawson's joint press conference with Michael Brown and David Hill, where you better get a cart because he's going through all 18 changes. Who knew the R&A was in the architecture business?

None of the alterations is apparently more offensive than Birkdale's new 17th green, which sounds like a disaster if even the lowly scribblers in attendance were astounded by its hideous nature.

Now, this green I quite understand has caused a little bit of controversy. Many of you made comments on it yesterday, and we do fully understand those comments. Let me say a few things about it. It is a par-5, so it's not as if we're expecting the green to be hit at with long irons. The type of green it is is a green that the pros are accustomed to on many golf courses they play at. If you look at Augusta a couple weeks ago, there's probably 18 more sporty greens there than this one. But we are aware that it's a green that could get away from us if we're not careful, and we will be using conservative pin positions and taking great care with the green speed. If we weren't aware of that, we could get into trouble, but we are and we won't. We will be monitoring how this green performs during the Championship to see if anything needs to be done to it in the future. So we're aware it's controversial. We'll have to see how it goes.

And we know how well that attitude worked for the USGA.

Clearly Dawson came prepared for the writers to ask how they can justify emasculating courses instead of doing something about equipment advances. And since questioning the disturbing nature of narrowing courses might require thought, Dawson was able to slip this in.

Overall we've increased the length of the golf course by only 155 yards, which is 2 per cent. Instead of hitting it 100 yards you've got to hit it 102, so the length addition is not that significant.

Now, you'd think that just maybe someone would say, hey, isn't narrowing, lengthening and tricking up courses going to make rounds take longer? Some questions almost got there:

Q. We had a situation at The Masters this year where Trevor Immelman and Brandt Snedeker took five hours to play in a two-ball in the final round. I believe that Adam Scott's group on Sunday was three hours for nine holes. Obviously slow play is the cancer on the game. How do we get players to move quicker around the golf course?

PETER DAWSON: I think we will certainly be aiming to do better than five hours and ten minutes. I think in recent times, particularly on the weekend, we've actually done quite well at the Open. Basic play has not really been an issue, and I'm quite confident that we can do an awful lot better than that.

Q. It's not an issue at the Open perhaps but it is an issue generally. It is getting abysmal. I'm wondering with the R & A as a governing body, how do we get them to get a move-on?

PETER DAWSON: We are concerned about this. We did see some very slow play at The Masters. That's not a criticism of the Augusta event, it just happened to happen.

 He acts like it's an isolated incident!

I wasn't aware of the Adam Scott group statistic. But we do have a meeting coming up in two or three weeks of the World Golf Foundation, where everyone around the table who runs professional golf will be there, and we have put the subject on the agenda, and we hope we will be able to get some meeting of the minds that it is a problem and start to work towards some improvement.

But as you say, it certainly needs something doing about it, not just for the running of these events but for the effect it has on grass-roots play. We do see people not unnaturally copying the stars, and I think it has had an effect on pace of play generally. We all know, don't we, that pace of play is one of the issues cited for participation, and the time that golf takes is an issue that's been cited for keeping participation levels down. It's clearly an issue right across the game, top to bottom, up and down the game, and I think it behooves all the governing bodies in golf to address it.

Yes, let's narrow, lengthen and toughen courses. That sets a wonderful example and really helps speed things up!

And after a few dull questions...

Q. When you say you're looking for a meeting of minds, what is the R & A's view on what can be done?

PETER DAWSON: I think at a professional level it's like drugs. It's a 52-week-a-year occupation, and I do think that ways need to be found to, one, educate players to encourage them, and as a last resort penalise them if they don't respond. We're not seeing any slow play penalties in the game, and that's the last thing we want to see is players being penalised, but unless there's a realistic threat of it, it's hard to see that this would improve.

Well he's right about that.

Here's the one question related to the remarkable number of changes to a course that most thought was already pretty darn good.

Q. The question I was going to ask, which I am going to ask, have you made as many changes to Open courses, to other Open courses, as you have to this one? You described 16 of the 18, which seems to me to be quite a lot.

PETER DAWSON: Well, it is, of course. Many of the changes, if you do it as a whole count, are quite minor. A number are more significant.

We've been going through a programme at all our Open venues by agreement with the clubs and the hosts of some quite significant changes. You're going to see a good deal at Turnberry next year, and you'll probably see quite a few at Livermore in 2012. Royal St. Georges we have, as well, but this is among the more significant in terms of quantum.

And why are these time test venues in need of so many "significant" changes?

I think I know why I don't get invited to their conference calls anymore.

Speaking of that, the conference call produced the killer quote of the day...

Q. My question has to deal with the course setup for the Open. As you know, there was a bit of consternation at The Masters as to how things played out the last couple years, and these questions always come up at the U.S. Open. I'm just curious your philosophy on how you like the course to play when the tournament begins in July.

PETER DAWSON: Well, the last time the Open Championship was here at Birkdale was ten years ago in 1998, and as we know, the game has moved on somewhat since then, and we have made a considerable number of course alterations here at Birkdale. Only two holes have had nothing done to them. The majority of holes, the alterations have been all about repositioning bunkers and run-off areas around the greens, but five holes have been significantly altered. And overall, the length of the golf course has gone up by 155 yards, which is only 2 percent of an increase. So the player length for this year's Championship will be 7,173 yards, but most of the changes have been designed to be strategic or requiring more accuracy from the players.

The game has moved on somewhat since then. Somewhat.

"I'm delighted with the way things have worked out and believe we have a good test there. It's narrower, longer and tougher."

/

Take a guess which course R&A secretary Peter Dawson is talking about? Only that lowly Turnberry, which hosted all of those exciting Open Championships but has become outdated thanks to all that heavy lifting the boys have been doing.

Mike Aitken reports:

"The Open hasn't been back to Turnberry since 1994 and in that time the links, which is a resort course that caters for visitors, was in need of attention for a major championship," he explained.

"Work needed to be done and we're very pleased that the people at Turnberry were willing to allow us to undertake these improvements. I'm delighted with the way things have worked out and believe we have a good test there. It's narrower, longer and tougher."

Isn't it great, one of the governing bodies touting the narrowing of a course. That's good for the game.

"Perhaps the most noticeable change is at the 16th which is now a dog-leg left-to-right. It's an alteration which (changes the angle] and makes the second shot to the green over the burn much harder. That change has also allowed us to take the tee back on the par-5 17th quite significantly.

And why did you need to do that? Oh right, the working out.

"Another difference is a new tee on the third which is much further back on the top of the hill. There's also a tee which is 20 yards back of the one we used last time on the 18th. Perhaps the most spectacular alteration, though, is the new tee at the tenth where the players are going to have to hit their drives over more of the water. One of the great advantages of having an Amateur before an Open is that you can see if what you've planned works. So, some late tweaks could be possible, but I don't anticipate much changing now.

Who knew the R&A provides architectural services?

Let's see now, making course changes but not addressing changes in equipment. Good thing they know how best to attack the problem.

R&A Delays Open Championship Drug Testing

/

Lawrence Donegan reports on the latest example of procrastination, joining grooves, the ball, etc. In this instance, they are blaming the Asian and South African Tours. The difference here is that this is something Peter Dawson has been adamant about, which may give us some insight into why they are dragging their feet on issues they aren't so passionate about (grooves, the ball, etc.).

 

"There is no doubt that getting a good drive away with a modern driver is easier than it was with an older driver. That’s a fact."

/

Reader GuttaPercha raises a great point on the post parsing Peter Dawson's comments to John Huggan.

I am confused.

"...there is no doubt that getting a good drive away with a modern driver is easier than it was with an older driver. That’s a fact."

If that's so, how come every second sentence I read is saying that pros don't have to be accurate any more (better grooves, lack of strategic challenge in course set up, penal rough anyway, etc)? Just bomb and gouge, etc.

If it's easier to hit a modern driver, but at the same time we're seeing lesser percentages of fairways hit (or whatever the best indicator is), then what is going on?

So far, the various papers and administrator comments on the impact of U-grooves have ignored any significant discussion of fairway widths as possibly impacting driving accuracy. I suppose it does get in the way of the USGA/R&A's argument, but as GuttaPercha notes, the governing bod's might want to resist the temptation to suggest the modern driver is having the most significant impact on skill or distance, and then lamenting the decline in driving accuracy.

Dawson Speaks! 2008 Edition

/

Dawson52695878.jpgUnlike Mike Aitken's insight-light Scotsman piece, John Huggan manages to squeeze some nuggets out of the R&A's Peter Dawson.

Naturally, the R&A head man is best on the subject of rangefinders:

“It’s very difficult to come up with a logical reason why, if a caddie can give you a yardage, or a book can give you a yardage, or a sprinkler head can give you a yardage, anyone needs that same number produced electronically. It could happen, of course, that players will end up doing all of the above. But my personal fear is that this is the first step towards the vision that every golfer should have a machine that can tell them wind speed, wind direction, the yardage and which club to use. The other end of that scale is that you pay golf the old way, with none of that sort of help.

Here's the best part:

“So where should the line be drawn? You could argue that the line should say ‘no such devices,’ but here it is has been drawn at ‘one such device.’ There are some arguments that it will speed up play, but I find it hard to believe that a device that zones in on the flagstick can do that when you have to wait for the flag to be replaced in order to use it.”

How can you argue with that? That's right, the USGA will.

On groove rule change timing:

"Right now, we remain in discussion with the USGA and would expect an announcement fairly soon.

This is very encouraging:

“Our motivation has never been to make rough more meaningful; we want to make driving accuracy more meaningful. It should matter that you hit the fairway, at least to a reasonable extent. That there should be no correlation between driving accuracy and success cannot be right. Which doesn’t mean that we want to see every fairway lined with rough. I’m not sticking up for rough. “There is also a bit of an issue with little shots from rough around the greens. Again, the combination of modern balls and modern grooves seems to produce too much of ‘bite’ on the ball when it lands. Especially when you combine that with the loft on the clubs. With a lot of loft on the club, you can hit the ball harder than you used to, even on a very short shot.

“Something is going to happen with the grooves and there may even be more action. At the Orlando show I saw a wedge that had over 70-degrees of loft. That has to be a concern.”

I don't get why loft should ever be regulated? If someone can use a spatula like that, let 'em!

This was a nice product of my interview with Pete Dye for Links:

On course architect Pete Dye’s recent comment on the USGA (“They’ve escalated the cost of maintenance. They’ve slowed down play. And they’ve completely lost control of the equipment. Outside of that, they’ve done a pretty good job.”)

“No comment. You’re not sucking me into that! You’re not going to get me to comment on Pete Dye’s designs. If he wants to comment on us, he can carry on.”

Well that's not much fun Peter.

And because it's a Peter Dawson interview, that means most of the great stuff is wiped out by absurd statements. On distance advances:

“We have the problem surrounded. Driving distances have stablised. In the last five years there haven’t been any technological innovations that have increased how far the ball goes. So the heat is coming out of the subject to a degree. But we remain committed to action should any further increases occur.

“Which is not to say that we are happy about where we are. But the game is certainly not in crisis over this issue. I’m not sure the argument that the game at the top level is less interesting to watch is any function of hitting distance. And I include in my counter argument this theory that the ball does not move sideways as much as it used to.

The game is not in crisis. Okay let's see here.

Thousands of courses are facing safety issues and are spending money to lengthen, the world's number one player says if it's up to him, they'd play balata and persimmon, ratings stink, pace of play has never been slower with bottlenecks caused by more reachable par-5s and par-4s, the R&A and USGA are considering an unprecedented rollback in equipment is being considered to help offset the problem, players are now going to be tested for drugs because distance has become so vital to success, and finally several great layouts are in danger of no longer being viable major sites, destroying one golf's unique connection to its origins.

But most of all, the technology boom has not grown the game. Some could argue that the side effects of the techology race are driving participation down.

When does it become defined as a crisis?

“If we have our robot hit shots with old balls and new balls and set the dial to hook or slice, then the results are identical. Except with the driver. The modern driver head is what prevents the ball from bending. It has nothing to do with the golf ball. The irons still bend the ball just as much.
“As Walter Driver of the USGA said to me recently, ‘everyone is entitled to their own opinions about distance and technology, but they are not entitled to their own facts.’

Oh good one Walter! Aren't you the one who said distance advances were 75% athleticism? How did you come up with that, uh, fact?

“The driver is very different. The way the head deforms at impact takes out sidespin. You can hit straight pulls or pushes. But slicing and hooking is more difficult.

“So there is no doubt that getting a good drive away with a modern driver is easier than it was with an older driver. That’s a fact. But is it too easy? I think there is merit to the argument that it is easier to get round in 66 than it used to be, but it is not easier to win a golf tournament. There are so many other factors involved in winning. In fact, you can easily argue that finishing first has never been harder."

Yeah, because of Tiger!

"It’s highly unlikely there’ll be any more equipment changes in the short term."

/

BBC's Iain Carter reminds you that if you were using a spring-like effect driver, your five year grace period is now up. He also talks to the R&A's David Rickman, who says the driver rule change has slowed down distance increases. And it sure sounds like the R&A is on the fence when it comes to regulating U-grooves.

“The new limit has been part of that calming of driving distance,” Rickman said. “The other aspect is that there hasn’t been a big advance in terms of ball technology in this period.”

For many the golf ball is already travelling too far. Traditional courses need to be lengthened to remain contemporary and new ones require more land. Therefore, the game becomes more expensive and takes longer to play, which hardly boosts its ability to attract new players.

Currently the two rule-making bodies, the R&A and USGA are in consultation with manufacturers discussing ball technology and clubface grooves.

Some groove patterns enable players to impart controlled spin on shots from the rough, thereby negating the benefit of finding a fairway.

This enables players to bash away carefree drives and then gouge the ball from the rough and still make birdies. “Bash and gouge is known and understood,” Rickman says before adding a counter argument. “But the best player still seems to win, so we have to be careful before we change anything.”

Key meetings will take place between the regulators and manufacturers later this month at the major golf trade show in Orlando.

It’s highly unlikely there’ll be any more equipment changes in the short term. The process is fraught with legal difficulties and manufacturers have to be won over – after all it is their aim to sell us the equipment that makes the game easier.

And no one wants to further alienate those players for whom it's already been an expensive new-gear new year.

All five of them.

And Lord knows, the masses have been taking up the game in droves to buy the latest stuff, because we know that's what grown men live for: shopping!