Proposed groove changes revisit United States GA vs. Solheim controversy A legitimate need, or slapping a Band Aid on problem of Tour pros’ distance?
By Phil Kosin Chicagoland Golf editor (From March, 2007 issue) This is Karsten Solheim redux. The United States Golf Association proposed a Rules change February 27 that would limit the amount of spin produced by U-shaped grooves.
Is this a positive move to force the competitive pendulum back toward skilled shotmaking and away from from brute strength? Or is the USGA simply avoiding conflict with golf ball manufacturers in refusing to pull back the golf ball?
First, a little history:
In 1984, the United States GA modified the Rule regarding grooves (face-markings) on irons.
This
came in response to a problem inherent to the investment-casting
process, pioneered in golf clubs by Karsten Solheim and his Ping
Manufacturing Company. Due to the nature of the process, it was
impossible to produce true sharp-edged V-shaped grooves on iron heads made through
casting.
All clubheads previous were forged – that is, a cold steel
blank stamped by having a heavy die crash violently into the blank in a hydraulic
press. That process made it easy to produce clean, sharp V-grooves.
The
USGA reacted to the request by modifying the rule to allow cast iron
faces – made by pouring hot, liquid metal into a mold – to have a
groove shaped more like the letter “U”, ergo the birth of the
“U-groove”. The advantage of the casting process, of course, was that
it allowed manufacturers to move more weight to the perimeter of the
clubhead to make them more forgiving on mis-hits. (The first true game-improvement iron.)
In 1985, Solheim
modified the top edges of the U-grooves on his new PingEye2 irons, the
first perimeter-weighted, U-groove iron on the market. He rounded off
the groove edges slightly to prevent the grooves from slicing up the
cover of a golf ball, as had been the tendency discovered in R&D. The Eye2s instantly
became the hottest-selling iron in the history of the game.
However,
Karsten did not submit the altered clubs to the USGA for approval. He
figured it wasn’t necessary because he used the univerally-accepted
"engineering-standard" technique for measuring the radius of those new
edges and felt they were within the USGA guidelines.
Then in 1987, Mark
Calcavecchia hit a PingEye2 8-iron from heavy rough that stopped
quickly on the green and contributed greatly to his winning the Honda
Classic.
Three months later, responding to complaints by other Tour
players, the USGA banned all PingEye2 irons – claiming the U-grooves on
the irons were illegal because they were spaced too closely together.
But while it banned the PingEye2s, the USGA went on to clarify that
U-grooves were still deemed legal for play.
Of course, there was no
substance to the player complaints – those who complained loudest were
not using PingEye2s, even though they could if they wished. But because those players had signed lucrative contracts to play
clubs produced by other manufacturers, they couldn't make the switch even though their irons might not perform as well
out of the rough because their clubs were equipped with traditional V-grooves.
Not too much conflict of interest, eh?
In 1988, the
USGA concluded its research on the subject and announced it found there
was no discernible difference in performance between irons with
conforming U- and V-shaped grooves. (Please read this sentence again and commit to memory.)
However, shortly thereafter, the
PGA Tour issued its own results on a similar study (obviously after
listening to the loudest complainers – all veteran Tour players, some who had their own club lines) and
attempted to ban all clubs with U-grooves.
To follow up, in February
of 1989, the PGA Tour had its request for a “condition of play” clause
to enforce its U-groove ban rejected by the USGA.
Lines had now been drawn, and bad blood ensued.
Leonard Decof
After
much deliberation with high-powered Rhode Island attorney Leonard Decof, Ping’s Solheim responded in August of 1989 by filing
a $100 million lawsuit against the USGA and its companion organization,
the Royal & Ancient Golf Society of St. Andrews. To follow up that
litigation, Solheim also filed an antitrust lawsuit against the PGA
Tour.
But when push came to shove, the USGA really could not afford
to buck Solheim in court because it was wrong, industry and legal
insiders opined.
... only the top one-ten thousandth percent of players generate enough clubhead speed with accuracy for the proposed groove changes to make a difference. They’re the ones who get the most benefit from modern ball and club technology, not us ...
USGA not battle-ready
The USGA did not have the financial muscle it has
today and could ill withstand paying any huge settlement should it lose. Which is what would have happened, in all likelihood.
So it had to find a way out where it could save face – .
Solheim’s
lawsuit against golf’s governing bodies was anchored – wisely – on
challenging the method the USGA and R&A employed to measure the
distance between grooves, which was the point of contention. Karsten
knew the USGA had employed an improper measuring method instead of that
of standard engineering practice. Karsten, an
engineer/physicist-turned-golf-designer, was holding all the cards. The
USGA knew it would lose if the case went to trial; it needed to settle
the lawsuit quickly, and was hopeful it could do so without suffering
the indignity of a public admission of guilt for being wrong.
To
put out the fire, the USGA called on Cog Hill owner Joe Jemsek to
broker a settlement, putting him on the USGA Executive Committee for a two-year term so he
could act as its official representative.
Why Jemsek? The Cog Hill
public golf patriarch was a longtime friend of Solheim, a relationship going back
to the days when Karsten first started his Ping putter company and was visiting golf courses himself in an effort to get some orders. Jemsek
believed from the start in Karsten’s innovative Ping putters and
engineering expertise, and in the earliest days was willing to buy all of Karsten’s
inventory when creditors were banging at Karsten's door.
The agreement carved out by Jemsek was reached in
1990 called for the USGA to grandfather all existing PingEye2 irons. In
return, Solheim upheld the authority of the USGA as the governing body
and also agreed to retool his iron’s face markings to conform.
But Solheim still had business with the PGA Tour.
Solheim
and the Tour sued each other. The Tour eventually wished to settle
after between 1991 and 1993 both sides spent millions on legal moves,
but Solheim (being guidedby Decof) held firmly to his principles. Finally, about a week before
the case was to begin in court, the two sides settled with the end
result being the Tour agreeing not to ban U-grooves.
Now, almost
exactly 20 years to the day Calcavecchia hit the shot that started the
firestorm, the U.S. Golf Association is proposing a change that would
limit the amount of spin produced by U-shaped grooves.
The proposal
would not ban U-shaped grooves, but would set specifications so that
they performed like V-shaped grooves, producing less spin, especially
out of the rough. One concern in recent years is that players attempt to hit
tee shots as far as possible, even if the ball lands in the rough,
knowing that with a shorter iron the extra spin will help keep the approach shot on the green.
It
is a joint proposal by the USGA and Royal & Ancient Golf Club,
although the R&A announced the proposal as a way of restoring “the
historical importance of driving accuracy in the game.’’
The USGA
and R&A will take comment on the proposals until Aug. 1 before
deciding whether to change the specifications on grooves.
After the carnage and settlements two decades ago, why revisit the subject?
USGA proposal, Feb. 2007 “The proposal calls for two key additional groove specifications for clubs. One would call for groove edge sharpness to be limited to an effective minimum radius of .010 inches. The second would limit the total cross-sectional area of a groove divided by the groove pitch (width plus separation) to 0.0025 square inches per inch.”
“The changes in grooves required under the USGA’s proposal would have very little effect on the performance of Surlyn balls favored by most golfers. More than two-thirds of golf balls sold in the U.S. are Surlyn-covered. The impact of this proposal would be felt primarily by highly skilled players using urethane-covered balls.”
The USGA proposes these new groove rules become effective for all new clubs covered by this rule change that are manufactured after Jan. 1, 2010. A related Condition of Competition would be added to the USGA Rules of Golf to become effective Jan. 1, 2009. This Condition would allow a [tournament] Committee to require the use of clubs that conform to the new groove rules for competitive events conducted after Jan. 1, 2009. Similar to other equipment-related Conditions of Competition, the USGA would recommend the Condition apply only to competitions involving highly-skilled players.”
– from USGA press release on the proposal
Dick
Rugge, senior technical director of the USGA, said officials didn’t
have the same equipment two decades ago to study the spin rate of balls
coming out of the rough.
“We didn’t have 20 more years of hard data
from the PGA Tour that there was a problem caused by getting out of the
rough easily,’’ Rugge said. “We’re looking at a lot more information.’’
He said manufacturers were sent technical reports in August and January, both totaling some 280 pages.
John Solheim, CEO of Ping and son of the late founder, said he would have to evaluate the reports.
“As
always, it concerns us when the USGA proposes changes that could affect
our ability to improve our products,’’ Solheim said. “Golfers rely on
us to be innovative so they can enjoy the game more. Any time that
ability is challenged, it concerns us.’’
Rugge said the proposal is
not a ban on U-shaped grooves, rather their characteristics measures in
fraction of inches. He said USGA research has shown that a 5-iron with
U-grooves spins 7,000 rpm, while the same club with V-grooves spins about
4,000 rpm.
David Rickman, director of rules and equipment standards
for the R&A, said science has shown “clear evidence’’ that certain
grooves allow the best players to get more spin, especially with the
modern golf ball.
“By limiting the amount of spin that can be
generated for shots from the rough, we hope to place greater emphasis
on accuracy and the skill required to recover from the rough,’’ Rickman
said. “It is a matter of reestablishing a proper balance to the game
and ensuring that skill remains the dominant element of success.’’
What
does this mean to club manufacturers? I posed the question to Gary
Hansberger, president of Vulcan Golf in St. Charles, Ill., and a
third-generation member of the Ram Golf Hansbergers. And one of the
more knowledgable golf club designers in the business.
“All I know is
I recently received a 145-page book from the USGA on the proposed
changes,” he said. “And we got another one sent to us last summer,
about the same size.
“I don’t know when I’ll get to reading them. It looks like a lot of technical jargon, not exactly the most interesting read.
“All
I know is we’re going to stick with our mission of providing custom
equipment that makes the game more enjoyable for the average player,”
he concluded. “What happens beyond that I don’t know.”
What does all this mean to the average player?
Very
little change, if any at all. You see, only the top one-ten thousandth
percent of players generate enough clubhead speed with accuracy for the
proposed groove changes to make a difference. They’re the ones who get
the most benefit from modern ball and club technology.
My guess is
the USGA is focusing on grooves in order to reign in scoring at the
elite level while not alienating equipment manufacturers – or giving
them an excuse to sue. And all the while avoiding the hot-button issue of pulling back the golf ball.
Most average golfers play with golf balls
manufactured with Surlyn or other plastic covers. The cover material is
so tough it does not get the same bite into the grooves as PGA Tour
players (and the rest of the top 0.0001 percent) do with the balls they
play – more expensive balls with softer, urethane covers.
Couple a
soft urethane cover with today’s grooves and add the main ingredient –
a high swing speed – and you see the problem. Too much control out of
deep rough, which is what Calcavecchia was alleged to be getting with
his PingEye2s 20 years ago. And that storm has yet to completely
subside.
As an aside, it makes me laugh when average golfers (the
other 99.9999 percent) with driver swing-speeds less than 105 mph spend
upwards of 50 bucks for a dozen Pro-V-whatevers. Same with today’s
expensive, high-tech, springlike-effect drivers. Both contain
distance-enhancing qualities available only to the top one percent
(115mph clubhead speed with the driver) of players. For anyone else,
spending that kind of money is purely a waste.
But most equipment
companies would prefer you didn’t have that knowledge. They stay in
business only by continually slapping different-colored lipsticks on
the same pig.
Truth be told, there haven’t been any earth-shattering
technologies come down the pike in the last three or four years.
At
least conforming ones.
So why re-focus on grooves?
Simple. The
USGA doesn’t want to get itself into another lawsuit with
manufacturers, who need to continually pump out new products to make
the profits that keep shareholders happy.
So grooves are a less
volatile target than the golf ball when it comes to an attempt to
control scoring and reign-in distance. Manufacturers don’t want to pull
back the ball because doing so will make no one happy. They want to
sell us the same ball their Tour pros are using – as if it really would
make a difference in our scores.
No company markets its irons based
on the grooves. Could you imagine that? “We have better grooves than
any other club on the market...”
So a slight tweak to the grooves
will not cause any manufacturer to lose market share, whereas changing
the ball would start a major revolution. Equipment manufacturers derive
more profit from golf balls because they’re a disposable and as long as we keep
spraying them into woods and water, we'll buy more ammo.
The USGA would like to continue to operate as the
rulesmaking body for golf in this country, and to do so needs to avoid
any major confrontations. It’s as simple as that.
Changing the rules
for grooves is the easiest and most harmless method of reigning in that
0.0001 percent. It won’t make a dadgum bit of difference for the rest
of us.
As an aside, neither would pulling the ball back 10 percent,
as has been proposed by many, with Jack Nicklaus on the point. You see,
the only people who get the extra distance from today’s balls are – you
guessed it – that one-ten-thousanth of a percent with controlled 115mph+ swing speeds.
