# USGA proposes groove change



## Butz (Nov 17, 2006)

USGA proposes groove change
The USGA announces a new equipment proposal regarding grooves

By Mike Stachura
GolfDigest.com
February 27, 2007

In what could amount to the first significant rollback of current equipment standards, the U.S. Golf Association announced today a proposed rule change that would take the bite out of the U-shaped grooves on iron and wedge faces.

The announcement of the proposed change in groove measuring requirements was accompanied by a secondary rule proposal that would allow for more design freedom in the area of clubhead adjustability. But it is the groove question that has drawn the most interest from the equipment industry to this point. The USGA proposal comes after nearly two years of research on the topic of spin generation. It announced the research project in March of 2006, revealed a preliminary report on its research in August and sent manufacturers a final report on its research in January. The report was consistent and unequivocal in its assessment of the impact of current U-grooved face configurations on spin generation, and the proposed rule echoes that opinion.

The USGA's Notice to Manufacturers on "New Groove Regulations" reads in part, "The research clearly demonstrates that for shots from the rough with urethane-covered balls, modern, square or U-groove clubs result in higher ball spin rates and steeper landing angles than V-groove designs that were predominantly used in the past. The combination of higher spin rate and steeper landing angle results in better control when hitting to the green, creating less challenge for shots from the rough."

The groove proposal is clearly a response by golf's governing bodies to restore a consistent connection or correlation between driving accuracy and success at the elite level in golf, according to **** Rugge, the USGA's senior technical director.

"The penalty for being in the rough is clearly not as bad as it used to be," Rugge told Golf Digest. "And this is an effort to try to return the game to a more balanced state."

Manufacturers and golfers will have six months to review the proposed rule and offer comment to the USGA, which then will make a decision about whether to adopt the rule as proposed or make other changes. Under the proposal, the groove change would become a condition of competition beginning in 2009. The Notice states, "The USGA would recommend that the condition apply only to competitions involving expert players." The proposal also states that all new clubs manufactured beginning in 2010 would need to adhere to the new measurements to be considered conforming. All current clubs and those sold prior to 2010 would be grandfathered for an interim yet to be determined, although the USGA proposes "a lengthy (at least 10 year) period of time.

Several manufacturers, including leading wedge manufacturers Cleveland Golf and Titleist, as well as TaylorMade, Callaway, Nike and Ping, offered no comment on the proposal when contacted by Golf Digest.

The primary changes in the groove-measuring rule are aimed at dulling the effect of current grooves in two key areas. First, there is an effort to reduce total groove volume, thereby decreasing the amount of moisture a club can channel away from the face prior to impact. Second, the rule seeks to soften the edges of the grooves by a more precise measure. Previously, grooves were limited by the somewhat ambiguous finger test.

Specifically, if adopted, the new rule would restrict the cross-sectional area of a groove. The new rule stipulates that the width of a groove multiplied by its depth and then divided by the width of a groove plus the distance of separation between grooves would be limited to .0025 square inches per inch. That offers designers some freedom in which to operate, but essentially could reduce current groove volume by 30-40 percent.

The sharpness of grooves also will be restricted. The groove edge radius has been limited to .010 inches. That would mark a more than 50 percent softening of the most aggressive current groove edges, according to equipment insiders. Rugge says the aim is not to stipulate design but to ensure a lower-spinning shot from the rough. He believes manufacturers still have plenty of design possibilities at their disposal. Still, he is confident the new rule will permanently control spin performance.

"We're quite confident that there's not [a way to engineer around the proposed rule]," Rugge said. "But that doesn't mean that we won't be vigilant and have the means to evaluate anything unusual."

Rugge also said it was important to him that manufacturers and average recreational golfers continue to offer their input to the USGA not only about the proposed groove rule but about the timeframe for implementation. The USGA has been more open about its research into this rule than any previous project in recent history, and perhaps ever. Rugge says that is not coincidental.

"We try to be as open as transparent about what we're doing as possible and show people why we're doing these things," he said. "This is not a smoke-filled room here. We're doing this in the light of day.

When asked if he would be surprised if there was going to be universal outrage over the grooves rule proposal, Rugge said, "I would have expected to have heard that already. We have not been secret about this. We started this two years ago. We wanted people to raise issues. And we had good feedback regarding our test procedures and results. It was well worth putting them out.

"This is a roadmap for how we want to go forward. So far it's been successful, but we'll see how it goes from here. But I think the more information that we give out the better everybody feels about it. They understand why we're doing something, and they also get to put their hands on the wheel with us. We're giving them plenty of opportunity."

Lost in the shuffle is the secondary proposal regarding club adjustability. The belief is that this area may provide more opportunities for companies to design clubs that can be more easily individually customized for average players. That could mean that fitting systems like Callaway's OptiFit and TaylorMade's SelectFit, both of which offer systems interchangeable heads and shafts for fitting purposes, may now be conforming clubs, instead of merely fitting devices.

"Both proposals are aimed at the average golfer," Rugge said. "On one hand, it minimizes the effect of the average golfer with grooves, and in the other case it maximizes the impact on average golfers with the adjustability proposal.

"We'd like to always do that, but we may not always be able to. I can't predict the future. But it is certainly preferable to have things that have less effect on the average golfer."

In a related announcement, the USGA said it is offering a proposal to relax the rules governing clubhead adjustability, as well. No specifics on those changes were announced.

The complete USGA announcement can be read at Redirect | United States Golf Association.


----------



## Butz (Nov 17, 2006)

*The USGA sharpens its case against U grooves*

The USGA sharpens its case against U grooves
A new USGA report concludes that modern U grooves provide elite golfers a "significant" advantage and suggests a rule change is likely

Illustration: +ISM


By Mike Stachura
GolfDigest.com
February 8, 2007

If the latest research by the U.S. Golf Association is any indication, the rules governing the design of grooves on iron and wedge faces are about to change. And do not expect them to get more lenient.

The U.S. Golf Association's final report of its nearly two-year-long study of grooves (in conjunction with the Royal and Ancient Golf Club) confirms its preliminary findings, namely that the U-shaped grooves on iron and wedge faces have a significant spin generation advantage over V-shaped grooves. The report was sent to manufacturers last month, and a portion of the report was obtained by Golf Digest through industry sources.

In its conclusion, the report reads, "[M]odern groove and face treatment specifications represent a significant performance improvement in terms of spin generation over more traditional V-shaped grooves."

Those words echo precisely the conclusions of August's preliminary report. (For more on the debate about U- vs. V-shaped grooves, and what it means for you, read "Here V Go Again," from Golf Digest's November 2006 issue.)

The final report does not include any proposal for a rule change, but it does seem to indicate a fundamental change from the USGA's position on grooves 20 years ago. At that time (during the so-called "square grooves" debate), Stuart Bloch, then chairman of the USGA's Implements and Ball Committee, actually termed any differences between U-grooves and V-grooves "inconsequential."

When asked about the different conclusion, USGA Senior Technical Director **** Rugge said time changes a lot of things. "We have a better means of researching than what we had 20 years ago," he said. "We have more tools and more researchers. We have three Ph.D.s now working on this. We didn't have that back then."

Most manufacturer representatives contacted by Golf Digest and Golf World declined official comment on the contents of the report, but Ping Golf, which has been down the road of a grooves controversy with the USGA in the past, expressed concern with the report.

"I continue to evaluate the USGA's most recent report, and I have serious concerns about it," said John Solheim, chairman and chief executive officer for Ping Golf. "I plan to express my views with them soon, but I can tell you now that their focus is off the mark. When it comes to grooves, we have been there and done that. We all need to move on, for the good of the game."

Others familiar with the findings believe the USGA will act soon to soften the current groove profile on irons and wedges. Rugge did not provide any specific timetable for a rule-change proposal or even suggest that there would be a change at all. But he did suggest that a meeting with Arnold Palmer several years ago prompted him and his staff to research the issue further.

"When Arnold Palmer came to our building and shook his finger at me and said, 'Allowing U grooves was the biggest mistake we ever made,' it did make me want to take a look at that issue."

The latest research suggests that all facets of groove design were considered during the investigation, which involved the testing of 70 different face and groove configurations. The report concludes that decreasing groove spacing, increasing groove depth and width, and decreasing the edge radius of each groove all increase the spin potential. The edge radius has to do with the relative sharpness of the top of the groove, or the groove's relative squareness.

Rugge says the USGA research showed that an intermediate groove, what the report calls a "V-like" groove, may provide a possible answer to the spin-generation concerns. That could be an important development in that a true V groove is much more difficult to mass manufacture than the current U groove. In tests with tour players, the report states, "it was demonstrated that it was possible to manufacture club faces with groove profiles that were not V-shaped yet performed like V-groove clubs when used by golf tour professionals in lies in the light rough."

Another crucial element in the grooves research is the idea that a change in the groove rule will not impact average golfers in any significant way, but could have a more profound effect on the way the game is played at the highest level. According to a USGA study of amateur players at the Walt Disney World Palm and Eagle Pines golf courses, only 13.1 percent hit the green from shots out of the rough from 100 to 200 yards. The PGA Tour average for similar shots is 49 percent. Also, because the urethane-covered ball used by tour players spins much more out of the rough than the typical ionomer-covered ball (like those with Surlyn covers) preferred by most average golfers (more than two-thirds, based on a study of recent Golf Datatech industry sales figures), average golfers don't often use the equipment that can generate the most spin.

"It's a way of addressing the problem where the problem shows up and not affecting anybody else," says Rugge.

The next step in the process could be a rule proposal, a likely step in the near future given the amount of time and research the USGA has devoted to the subject. Rugge says any rule proposal would allow for individual manufacturers to work within a set of guidelines, not simply mandate a one-size-fits-all procedure. The key elements most likely will be a combination of limiting the cross-sectional groove volume and more clearly defining the guidelines for groove edge radius. Of the latter, Rugge said, "We've never really defined it very well. We've only defined it with the finger test," referring to the Rules of Golf stipulation that a face design "must not have sharp edges or raised lips as determined by a finger test."

Officials at Callaway, TaylorMade, Nike and Titleist did not have a comment on the USGA's report.

Mike Stachura is Equipment Editor for Golf Digest.


----------



## cesc (Mar 3, 2007)

What are your own takes on changing the grooves? As in your own unaltered opinion.


----------



## 300Yards (Jan 23, 2007)

The've already tried this before..no way is going to pass. To suggest a groove change, just becasue one may produce a tiny advantage is bogus. Most amateurs can't even get spin, let alone control it. It'll probably never be done. I for one, refuse to give up my Feel 60* U/V max groove wedge...


----------



## Golfbum (Oct 14, 2006)

300Yards said:


> The've already tried this before..no way is going to pass. To suggest a groove change, just because one may produce a tiny advantage is bogus. Most amateurs can't even get spin, let alone control it. It'll probably never be done. I for one, refuse to give up my Feel 60* U/V max groove wedge...


I agree. They should not be messing with the equipment the Amateurs play with. Making the game harder will drive people away from the game. 

Now I do not have a problem with the PGA Tour changing their rules on grooves. In fact I would love to see Square and Box grooves outlawed on the PGA. Maybe then the Bomb & Gouge Crowd will have to hit more fairways. Shorter hitters will be able to compete better. No more "Smash it 340, if it is in the rough then hit a hard wedge to the green because it will hold"


----------



## 300Yards (Jan 23, 2007)

Golfbum said:


> I agree. They should not be messing with the equipment the Amateurs play with. Making the game harder will drive people away from the game.
> 
> Now I do not have a problem with the PGA Tour changing their rules on grooves. In fact I would love to see Square and Box grooves outlawed on the PGA. Maybe then the Bomb & Gouge Crowd will have to hit more fairways. Shorter hitters will be able to compete better. No more "Smash it 340, if it is in the rough then hit a hard wedge to the green because it will hold"


Nicely said! Their are other tricks the pros use to get spin as well, and in my expereince, the balls, and green condition influence spin more than grooves. In fact, I did an experient today. I took my U/V groove wedge, and hit a Titelist DT 90, and backed it up 6 inches on my carpet. I then used the same wedge, and hit a Pro V1, and I backed it almost a foot. I believe that speaks for itself. The grooves don't mean S***, IMO. Especially if the operator is faulty.:laugh: 

There's a reason the pros use soft balls, they add almost automatic spin. I think I heard that 90% of tour greens are softer than what most amateurs are used to. A soft ball, and a soft green, that's how they do it so easily.


----------

