the spin zone, ebook, 2009-12-4

8/3/2019 The Spin Zone, eBook, 2009-12-4

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-spin-zone-ebook-2009-12-4 1/28

December 2009

by

Steve Pike and Terry Koehler

The Whole Story About Grooves



FOREWORD

One of the most significant rule changes ever made regarding golf clubs will take ef-

fect January 1, 2010. The Rules of Golf, as published by the United States Golf Associa-

tion and the Royal & Ancient, will change for 2010 in the area of defining the geometry

of the grooves on the face of golf clubs with 25 degrees of loft or more. Over the past

year or so, the level of media confusion and misinformation has been astounding, leaving

golfers confused as to just what is happening and how the changes in the rules will affectthem. The most common “untruth” being told is that ‘U’ shaped grooves will be “out-

lawed”, forcing all clubs to return to the old standard ‘V’ shaped groove.

This is simply not true.

At its core, the new rule’s main effect on golf clubs will be that clubs introduced to

the market after January 1, 2010 will have to feature grooves that have a slight radius im-

parted to the edges, as opposed to the very clean and sharp edges that have become com-

monplace with the advent of computer controlled milling processes. And the effect of that

radius will be a reduction in the amount of spin that is imparted to the ball at impact, es-

pecially on shots from the rough.

But this rule goes on to say that whether or not you can play your current wedges or must play the new grooves is covered under the “Condition of Competition”, which is determined

by the tournament committee. It is further recommended, right in the text of the rule, that this

condition only be applied to competitions involving “expert players” until at least 2024.

The major professional tours have announced that they will apply the new rule in

2010, as will the USGA and R&A, but only in their major championships. All other

i



USGA and R&A events will not apply the rule until 2014 at the earliest, and most minor

tour and other events are expected to follow suit around that time as well.

For all regular club and amateur golf events, clubs manufactured to the current groove

standards will be fine for play until “at least 2024”, according to the text of the rule itself.

This e-book is intended to be the most complete dissertation on the new rule ever

compiled. It explains why and how the ruling change came about, exactly what it says,

and how it will be implemented. It is published as a service to the golf industry and golf

population of the world, and was made possible by a grant from EIDOLON Golf, makers

of the world-acclaimed and patented V-SOLE wedges.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Steve Pike is an award-winning journalist and author who defined golf business report-

ing in the 1990s, first as Business Editor of Golfweek magazine and then as Business Edi-

tor at Golf World and Golf Shop Operations magazines for Golf Digest. He currently is

the National Golf Equipment writer for examiner.com, and a free-lance contributor of

golf articles to a number of print golf publications. Steve and his family live in the South

Florida village of Wellington.Terry Koehler is President/Founder of Eidolon Golf, a company building a stellar repu-

tation for their patented and custom-crafted wedges. A 30-year veteran of the golf indus-

try, Koehler is former President of Reid Lockhart Golf and former Director of Marketing

at the Ben Hogan Company. He has earned five golf club patents, been the featured guest

on a number of regional and national golf radio broadcasts, and authors a popular blog

at www.thewedgeguy.com. Terry lives in Victoria, Texas.

ii



“We believe, and players have confirmed, that the conversion process will not be a simple exchange of existing wedges with new grooves. The conversion process may involve different wedge designs and lofts, different shot technique, different golf balls and different set configuration (including drivers).”

— Acushnet Company (Titleist, FootJoy, Cobra) President Wally Uihlein

As the president of the industry’s leading ball manufacturer, Mr. Uhlein seems to be predicting that changes in ball con-

struction are sure to follow. Neither the Tour players – or the average golfers will just give up the ability to score. And

the PGA Tour will not sit by while winning scores creep upward if that’s not what they think their fans want.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

How It All Began . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Research Behind the Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Changing the Rule On Grooves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

A Rule Implemented In Stages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

How Grooves Will Be Measured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

How Will It Affect You?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Author’s Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23



HOW IT ALL BEGAN

It all began with The King.

“When Arnold Palmer came to our building (in 2005) 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,” U.S. Golf Association Senior Technical Director Dick Rugge

told Golf Digest’s Mike Stachura in February 2007.

Palmer was referring to a 1984 USGA decision to soften the rules on face markings

that allowed for “U” shaped grooves as opposed to traditional “V” grooves.

Later in ‘05, Rugge, the former director of research and development at TaylorMade-

adidas Golf, informed equipment manufacturers that the USGA would begin a new study

of “spin generation.” Its concern was that the connection between driving accuracy andscoring was deteriorating, with the players having the ability to spin the ball almost as ef-

fectively from the rough as from the fairway. In the mind of the USGA, that has a serious

detrimental effect on the integrity of the game.

In 2006 the USGA released an interim report explaining its research which indicated

a significant relative increase in spin generation in U-groove clubs over V-groove clubs.For better or for worse, equipment companies knew that the USGA had found a way to

deal with one of its worst nightmares – the relative ease of which PGA Tour players were

spinning balls out of deep rough and making shots stop quickly on greens.

Forget that today’s Tour players are, in athletic vernacular, “bigger, stronger, faster,

“than previous generations; forget that the urethane-covered golf balls introduced around

2000 were easier to spin out of rough than Surlyn- or even balata-covered golf balls; for-

1



get that simply growing the rough and narrowing the fairways likely would likely accom-

plish the USGA’s goal.

Having already limited club-head size, coefficient of restitution (COR) and moment

of inertia (MOI), only to watch Tour players continue to play “bomb and gouge” golf, the

USGA set its sights on grooves. And it wasn’t the first time.

In the 1987 Honda Classic, Mark Calcavecchia hit a Ping Eye2 8-iron with U-

grooves from deep rough that stopped quickly on the green. Later that season, the USGA

announced a ban on the popular Ping Eye2 irons created by the legendary Karsten Sol-

heim. Its reasoning? The USGA said it believed the radius-edged grooves were too

closely spaced together.

But a 1988 USGA study of grooves determined there was no significant benefit to U-

grooves over V-grooves, and in 1989 the USGA rejected a request from the PGA Tour for a condition of play rule to ban U-grooves.

In 1990 the USGA and Solheim settled their much-publicized $100 million anti-trust

lawsuit - brought by Solheim – with the USGA agreeing to “grandfather” all previously

made Ping Eye2 irons. In exchange, Solheim conceded the USGA’s authority as golf’s

ruling body.

That was basically the end of the story until companies began using computer-oper-

ated milling machines around 1995. The CNC machines created more precise grooves on

irons and wedges, and those grooves have very sharp edges which grip the ball like an off

road tire on a 4-wheel drive. After some 10 years of watching tour players utilize CNC-

milled short irons and wedges to (in its mind) carve up Tour golf courses, Rugge put forth

2



his announcement of the spin generation study. So began a two-year plus sojourn into

geometry, agronomy, metallurgy, aerodynamics and history.

This e-book traces that journey. Its objective is to provide readers – for the first time

– a full understanding of the USGA’s decision, the testing behind the decision and the de-

cision’s impact on golfers of all skill levels. It also separates fact from fiction in this great

“U-groove vs. V-groove” debate and presents the true facts that the mainstream golf

media has missed.

3

"I think they’re {USGA} really on the right track. I certainly hope so, because what’s going to happen is that the golf ball – the pros are going to be the ones that drive what goes on. They’re not going to be able to stop the golf ball out of the rough with the V-grooves. They’re going to want a softer ball so they can hit a softer shot. When you have a softer ball, it’s going to curve more and not go as far.''

— Jack Nicklaus

So, Jack Nicklaus believes this could trigger a series of developments that could cause the game will revert back moreto how it was played by Hogan, Nelson, Snead, Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Miller, himself and the other greats?

Can that be all bad?



THE RESEARCH BEHIND THE CHANGE

It became known to golf equipment manufacturers in 2005 that the USGA was con-

cerned about the impact of the modern grooves on the integrity of the game, and that they

had been studying PGA Tour player statistics to see if driving accuracy as an indicator of

performance was in fact, deteriorating. The USGA determined that, as an indicator of a

player’s ability to win and consistently place high on the money list, driving accuracy had

indeed become much less important than in earlier times. That concerned them.

So, they began to study the issue closer, and published two reports on the subject in

August, 2006 and January, 2007. On June 20, 2007, the USGA published its final study

on the subject: “A STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF ROUGH HEIGHT ON TOUR

PLAYER PERFORMANCE USING U- AND V-GROOVED IRONS”.

Insert image of 3 golf balls on grass here

4

(L = 1/2 ball diameter) (L = 1 full ball diameter) (L = 2 ball diameters)



For the testing, the USGA prepared 5- and 8-irons and sand wedges – all forged mus-

cle-back models – so that face inserts could be switched out to test U- and V-shapedgrooves. Groove width, depth, spacing and edge radius were identical, so that the only variable

was the actual shape of the grooves. All test sets were matched for length, lie and swingweight.

The testing was performed by seven professional golfers who were competing at the

developmental tour level. Each player hit shots with all three clubs, from fairway and

three levels of rough – light, medium and long. The rough tested was a perennialrye/Kentucky blue grass mixture.

As shots were hit, radar was used to track the launch conditions and trajectory, and

high speed video was used to capture incoming trajectory.

5

Developmental Tour Player Long Rough Tests

f a i r w a y

f a i r w a y

f a i r w a y

U

m e d i u m

U

m e d i u m

U

m e d i u m

V m e d i u m

V m e d i u m

V m e d i u m

U

l o n g

U

l o n g

U

l o n g

V l o n g

V l o n g

V l o n g

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

5 8 SW

Iron

S p i n

( r p m )

(U-groove) fairway

(U-groove) medium rough

(V-groove) medium rough

(U-groove) long rough

(V-groove) long rough

Developmental Tour Player Long Results (Spin)

Graph #1



Graph #1 shows the comparative performance of the two types of grooves on shots from

light rough vs. shots hit from the fairway with the U-grooves. [Authors’ note: It is quite inter-esting that, in contrast to the fear the USGA has, sand wedge shots from the fairway gener-

ated considerably more spin than from even light rough.]

In Graph #2, the deterioration in spin generation from fairway to medium and long

rough is illustrated. You can see the increasing performance advantage of U- vs. V-grooves

as the rough height increased. This is what the USGA found troubling. Players were ableto generate almost as much spin with the short irons and wedges from long rough as they

were from the light rough, and in some cases even more spin from the long rough.

Insert Graph #2 here

6

Developmental Tour Player Long Rough Tests

f a i r w a y

f a i r w a y

f a i r w a y

U m e d i u m

U m e d i u m

U m e d i u m

V m e d i u m

V m e d i u m

V m e d i u m

U l o n g

U l o n g

U l o n g

V l o n g

V l o n g

V l o n g

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

5 8 SW

Iron

B a l l S p e e d ( f p s )

(U-groove) fairway

(U-groove) medium rough

(V-groove) medium rough

(U-groove) long rough

(V-groove) long rough

Developmental Tour Player Long Results (Ball Speed)

Graph #2



"When square grooves came out, I know guys that were going through 12 and 13 golf balls in 18 holes. And it was amazing. It took away the reward for driving it in the fairway. If you hit it in the rough you now could hit it as hard as you wanted to hit it with no fear of a flyer, and actually, put more spin on the ball.

— Champions Tour player D.A. Weibring

Can you argue with the idea that golf is a game steeped in history and all the changes in equipment over the past twenty

years or so have made it practically impossible to compare modern players to those of old? Or that equipment shouldnot be a substitute for skills developed through many hour of imaginative practice, rather than swing mechanic drills?

The USGA stated in its “SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS” section of this study

that, “ . . . the performance advantages are present in at least two types of grass:Bermudagrass and a perennial rye/Kentucky blue grass mixture. Based on this study, sim-

ply growing the rough longer will not bring the performance of U-grooved clubs to the

level of V-grooves in terms of spin generation.”

All that was left to do now is begin the process of proposing and adopting a change

in the Rules of Golf that define how grooves must be configured. And that’s exactly whatthe USGA did.

7



CHANGING THE RULEREGARDING GROOVE GEOMETRY

The Rules of Golf, as published by the USGA and the Royal & Ancient, define the

parameters on a worldwide basis, so that we all can “play the same game”. The Rules

cover every aspect of golf, and that includes equipment. That’s not different from any

other sport, really.

With regard to the grooves on golf clubs, the rule is really quite simple. It allows that

a portion of the face of the club “may be recessed in the form of grooves or punch

marks”, then sets out the specific measurement limitations for the depth, width and spac-

ing of such indentions. Pretty straightforward stuff for golf club manufacturers. The

grooves must have a simple shape, with no undercuts, and they must be symmetrical in

cross-section shape. They can be shaped like a ‘V’, ‘U’ or square, or anywhere in be-tween. But they cannot be wider than 0.035” or deeper than 0.020”, and they cannot be

spaced closer than 3 times the width of the groove.

But what started this whole issue is that there was no restriction on how the edge of a

groove was formed. So almost all manufacturers – especially of wedges – began to ma-

chine-cut grooves so that the edges were very precise and sharp. And as we’ve all seen,

the very best ones can help a golfer spin the heck out of a golf ball from nearly anywhere.

As the USGA observed what skilled players could do with this new groove technol-

ogy, it became concerned about the deterioration of the importance of driving the ball in

the fairway. So the process began with a Notice to Manufacturers in the summer of 2008,

outlining the proposed new rule. This was followed by a period where golf manufacturers

were encouraged to provide feedback to the USGA, which was quite exuberant. Not any

8



were in favor of the changes, with the argument that such changes to the rule would have

a negative effect on scoring ability of average players, who certainly are no threat to theintegrity of the game. In addition, it would increase the cost of manufacture of clubs that

must conform to the new rule. The USGA listened . . . but proceeded anyway.

In the Spring of 2009, the official “decree” was released that the Rules of Golf gov-

erning the geometry of grooves would indeed change, effective January 1, 2010. Until

then, the golf media had given scant notice to the subject, but with the ruling becomingofficial, the confusion in the media began.

Everywhere you turn the past few months, it seems there is a report on the “elimina-

tion of V-grooves”. This is completely false as you’ll see when we get to the details of

the Rule itself. And even worse, at least one equipment manufacturer even resorted to

scare tactics, encouraging golfers in emails and advertising to “get your square groove

wedges before they are outlawed.”

The authors, Mr. Pike and Mr. Koehler, have published this definitive writing on the

subject to set the record straight, so let’s begin with the exact ruling, as it is being pub-

lished in the Rules of Golf of the USGA and Royal & Ancient:

2010 RULES - CLUB FACE MARKINGS (Appendix II, 5)

c. Impact Area Markings

If a club has grooves and/or punch marks in the impact area they must meet the fol-lowing specifications:

(i) Grooves

Grooves must be straight and parallel.9



Grooves must have a plain(*), symmetrical cross-section and have sides which do

not converge (see Fig. XI).

Insertfigure XI.tif here

The width, spacing and cross-section of the grooves must be consistent throughout

the impact area.

The width (W) of each groove must not exceed 0.035 inches (0.9 mm), using the 30degree method of measurement on file with the USGA.

The distance between edges of adjacent grooves (S) must not be less than threetimes the width of the grooves, and not less than 0.075 inches (1.905 mm).

The depth of each groove must not exceed 0.020 inches (0.508 mm).

(*) For clubs other than driving clubs, the cross-sectional area (A) of a groove di-vided by the groove pitch (W+S) must not exceed 0.0030 square inches per inch(0.0762 mm2/mm) (see Fig. XII).

10

Figure XI



[Insert Fig. XII from PDF]

Grooves must not have sharp edges or raised lips.

(*) For clubs whose loft angle is greater than or equal to 25 degrees, groove edgesmust be substantially in the form of a round having an effective radius which is not lessthan 0.010 inches (0.254 mm) when measured as shown in Fig. XIII, and not greaterthan 0.020 inches (0.508 mm). Deviations in effective radius within 0.001 inches

(0.0254 mm) are permissible.

So, right there you can see that the ruling bodies have not eliminated square or “U”

grooves. And the effect on spin of the slight variation in measuring groove spacing and

volume will be minor, if there is any impact at all.

The big alteration to the rules governing grooves that will affect spin is the new re-

quirement that “Grooves must not have sharp edges”, further stating that all grooves

have edges that feature a radius of at least 0.010”. Now, that may seem small, but the ef-

fect of imparting this radius to the edges of the grooves on all new clubs is that it will

give them the resemblance to a prior club with grooves that are quite worn. And that is

where a significant loss of spin on shots from the rough will occur, with a lesser effect on

shots hit from clean fairway lies. We rarely see clubs anymore with punch marks instead

of grooves, but the rule wording continues to address this method of scoring the face.

Figure XII

11



[Insert Fig. XIII from PDF ]

(ii) Punch Marks

The maximum dimension of any punch mark must not exceed 0.075 inches (1.905 mm).

The distance between adjacent punch marks (or between punch marks and grooves)must not be less than 0.168 inches (4.27 mm), measured from center to center.

The depth of any punch mark must not exceed 0.040 inches (1.02 mm).

Punch marks must not have sharp edges or raised lips.

(*) For clubs whose loft angle is greater than or equal to 25 degrees, punch markedges must be substantially in the form of a round having an effective radius which is not

less than 0.010 inches (0.254 mm) when measured as shown in Figure XII, and notgreater than 0.020 inches (0.508 mm). Deviations in effective radius within 0.001 inches(0.0254 mm) are permissible.

12

Figure XIII



Note 1: The groove and punch mark specifications above marked with an asterisk

(*) apply only to clubs manufactured on or after January 1, 2010.

Note 2: Effective January 1, 2010, the Committee may require, in the conditions ofcompetition, that the clubs the player uses must conform to the groove and punch markspecifications above marked with an asterisk (*). This condition is recommended only forcompetitions involving the highest level of expert player.

What is very important to realize is that – even though most of the dialog has beenabout wedges – this rule applies to any clubs with 25 degrees of loft or more. That means

that full sets of irons must also conform to this new groove geometry.

So, there you have the word as printed in the new Rules of Golf. It really would be

pretty straightforward, except that the USGA created a somewhat confusing variable to

this Rule as noted in “Note 2” above:

Note 2: Effective January 1, 2010, the Committee may require, in the conditions ofcompetition, that the clubs the player uses must conform to the groove and punch markspecifications above marked with an asterisk (*). This condition is recommendedonly for competitions involving the highest level of expert player. (empha-sis added)

For the first time in USGA and Royal & Ancient history, golf’s ruling bodies wererecommending that a Rule not be applied across the board to all golfers, all the time. It

has always been up to the local tournament director to create certain “local rules” or to

waive certain rules, the most common being the 14-club limit. But never before has the

USGA and R&A created a rule, then within the rule itself, advise that it only be applied to

certain groups of golfers.

13



"The PGA Tour supports the decision of the United States Golf Association and the R&A regarding new groove specifications, and we plan to implement the rule change as a condition of competition for our events across the three Tours beginning Jan. 1, 2010. We do so with full confidence that the testing and analytical procedure wasextensive and thorough, including significant data provided by the Tour’s ShotLink scoring system and the support from our members for various types of field testing.''

— PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem

This past summer, the PGA waffled a bit before taking this position. What was at stake was a “showdown” of sorts that

could have pitted the two most visible organizations in the game in a public relations battle for supremacy. We are allfortunate that didn’t happen.

Bogey and par competitions - See Note 1 to Rule 32-1a.

Stableford competitions - See Note 1 to Rule 32-1b.

*Any club or clubs carried in breach of this condition must be declared out of play by theplayer to his opponent in match play or his marker or a fellow-competitor in stroke play immedi-ately upon discovery that a breach has occurred. If the player fails to do so, he is disqualified.

PENALTY FOR MAKING STROKE WITH CLUB IN BREACH OF CONDITION:Disqualification.

So, what we have here is a rule that only applies to certain golfers, at the discretion of

the “committee”, which in most cases will be the golf professional or tournament chairman.

Though not expressly contained in the rule itself, the USGA and R&A have been consistent

in their dialog with manufacturers and the media that they are advising that this rule only beapplied in competitions involving “expert players” all the way out to “at least 2024.”

15



A RULE IMPLEMENTED IN STAGES

As if the rule was not confusing enough with its wording about “expert players” and

“condition of competition”, the USGA created a drawn-out schedule for when the new

rule would be implemented. From that schedule, all competitive organizations from the

NCAA to minor professional tours to high profile amateur events have to determine what

they should do.

Here is the actual timeline of implementation of this new rule, both for the manufac-

ture and sale of clubs and for competitions, as it has been published by the USGA:

For the manufacture of equipment:

- Jan. 1, 2010: All new clubs submitted to USGA for approval must conform to

new specifications. Clubs submitted to the USGA prior to Jan. 1, 2010 may con-tinue to be manufactured and sold until Jan. 1, 2011 with grooves conforming tothe old rule.

- Jan. 1, 2011: All clubs manufactured must conform to the new specifications, orthey will appear on the USGA list of non-conforming equipment.

So, for club manufacturers, any club model that was introduced or made prior to De-cember 31, 2009 can continue to be made with those prior-conforming grooves all the way

through 2010. But any new models that are introduced after January 1, 2010, will have to

feature the new groove geometry in order to be ruled “conforming” by the USGA. So, at

least until the end of 2010, you’ll find wedges and irons in the golf stores with both the old

and new groove geometry. In early 2011, all the older wedges and irons will be gone from

the shelves, and all clubs will feature the new groove configuration . . . or will they?

16



No one yet knows what the long term affect of this ruling will be. Will a market for

“outlawed” clubs materialize after January, 2011? Or will golfers universally agree toabide by the new rule and play only conforming equipment. The actual outcome is any-

body’s guess at this time.

Golf equipment manufacturers have all begun testing and introducing all sorts of

new groove geometry in an attempt to mitigate the loss of spin that the new ruling is sure

to effect. No one really knows yet how much spin the average golfer will gain or lose, as

each golfer has his or her own particular skill set that is also very instrumental in the spin

generation. And various golf balls all spin differently. But early testing by EIDOLON

Golf, a specialty wedge manufacturer of premium wedges, indicates that the highest level

players may well be affected the least by this ruling change, as they have much more

highly-developed skills in ball striking and shot making. In other words, the spin gener-

ated by a tour professional is much more influenced by their technique than the equip-

ment; the exact opposite is quite possibly true for the average recreational golfer.

The full understanding of the impact of this rule at all levels of play will become

clear as we progress through 2010 and a broad base of feedback is generated.

The more confusing aspect of the new ruling on grooves involves the schedule of is im-

plementation by the various entities in charge of professional and amateur competitions. Asof this writing, the published schedule for the implementation of the new rule is as follows:

- Jan. 1, 2010: PGA Tour, major USGA and R&A championships and internationalfederation tours will adopt the rule as an “expert” condition of competition.

- Jan 1, 2011: All professional tours are expected to adopt the rule as a Condition

of Competition

17



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 condi-tioning changes, driver improvements (such as large-headed drivers made with exotic materials), shaft improve-ments, 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.''

— Ping Golf Chairman John Solheim

Mr. Solheim makes a good point about other influences on scoring, but the rule is written now. Only time will tell if golfers will struggle around the greens with equipment built to conform to the new rule.

- Jan. 1, 2014: USGA and R&A will implement condition of competition at all of

their expert amateur competitions. Other amateur golf organizations (for example,NCAA, state and regional associations) are expected to follow the USGA and R&Atimeline for their expert competitions.

- Jan. 1, 2024: According to the USGA and R&A, this is the earliest possible datethe condition of competition will become a permanent equipment specification inthe Rules of Golf.

So, if you are not planning to compete at the professional or highest amateur level,

your currently conforming wedges are good for play until at least 2024. If you have your

sights set on the PGA, European or other major professional tours, or plan on qualifying

for the U.S. Open, U.S. Senior’s Open, U.S. Women’s Open, or one of the major R&A

championships in 2010, you’ll need to play with clubs that conform to the new rule. For

all other USGA Championships, lower level tours and other amateur play, your currently-

conforming clubs are fine until at least 2014.

18



HOW GROOVES WILL BE MEASURED

So, making a rule is one thing . . . enforcing it is another altogether. From a manufac-

turer’s standpoint, all major brands have always submitted their new models of clubs and

balls to the USGA for examination for their conformity to the Rules of Golf. When the

USGA is satisfied that a club or ball meets all requirements to be “legal”, it is officially

added to the list of “Conforming Equipment”. While rare, it is not uncommon for a make

or model to be listed as “non-conforming” if it does not fall within the restrictions ac-cording to the Rules of Golf. There are a number of drivers and balls that are too “hot”, or

clubs that otherwise violate the Rules of Golf that are on the market, but all are consid-

ered as “gimmicks” by the vast majority of golfers.

In this case, the USGA realized there would have to be a way for manufacturers and

tournament directors to examine wedges and irons to ensure that they conform to the new

rules regarding groove geometry. Of course, the USGA and major manufacturers have thehighest technology available that can read groove width, depth, spacing, etc. to the small-

est fraction of an inch – we’re talking hundred thousandths here. A variation of the size of

a few human hairs can make a club non-conforming. But what about the smaller compa-

nies and at the tournament level?

The USGA has devised a methodology that is (according to them) reasonable in costand complexity. The patent-pending measurement system, called “GrooveScan,” is being

made available to club manufacturers (for a license fee, of course). According to the

USGA, the system requires a personal computer and uses a flat bed document scanner

which has a resolution of 0.00015”(Epson V-500). The “kit” contains the necessary soft-

ware and a slicing tool. Here’s how the process will work.

19



First, the groove measurements are obtained from a casting of the club’s face, which

is made using a fast curing, metrology grade reproduction compound. After a brief curingtime, the casting is sliced with the included tool to produce an accurate reproduction of

the profile of the grooves. The sliced casting is then placed on the flatbed scanner. After a

few clicks of a mouse, the USGA says an accurate profile of the grooves is captured by

the scanner and sent to the PC for analysis. The overall conformance status and the de-

tailed measurements of each groove will be provided.

From start to finish, the USGA says the system averages approximately five minutes

per club when multiple clubs are measured.

So how does this system work at PGA Tour events and USGA Open championships? Ac-

cording to the USGA, the system is suitable for field-testing, quality assurance, and R&D activ-

ities. Due to its high precision, field measurements obtained by the GrooveScan at competition

sites will not require confirmation by distant lab measurement device. The PGA Tour, accord-ing to the USGA, has already selected the GrooveScan for use on-site at its events.

First, the groove measurements are obtained from a casting of the club’s face, which

is made using a fast curing, metrology grade reproduction compound. After a brief curing

time, the casting is sliced with the included tool to produce an accurate reproduction of

the profile of the grooves. The sliced casting is then placed on the flatbed scanner. After afew clicks of a mouse, the USGA says an accurate profile of the grooves is captured by

the scanner and sent to the PC for analysis. The overall conformance status and the de-

tailed measurements of each groove will be provided.

From start to finish, the USGA says the system averages approximately five minutes

per club when multiple clubs are measured.

20



"When I came to the Tour in '96, a tight pin was five, or even six {steps from the edge of the greens}.That wasconsidered a tight pin. Now they are three or four. That's one of the reasons guys have gone to more lofts ontheir wedges and sharper grooves. I think starting the next year you'll see quite a few 62-s and 64-degree wedges in the guys' bags."It'll be interesting seeing guys catching flyers and not being able to spin the ball back out of the rough. Their de-cision as to how they play par-5s, whether they will they try and drive short par 4s now . . . short-siding yourself is obviously going to pay a little more of a price.

— Tiger Woods

Hmmm, Tiger seems to think that actual course management and strategy might take a larger role in how the game is

played at the highest level. That can’t be all bad, can it? He is probably licking his chops about that.

So how does this system work at PGA Tour events and USGA Open championships? Ac-

cording to the USGA, the system is suitable for field-testing, quality assurance, and R&D activ-ities. Due to its high precision, field measurements obtained by the GrooveScan at competition

sites will not require confirmation by distant lab measurement device. The PGA Tour, accord-

ing to the USGA, has already selected the GrooveScan for use on-site at its events.

21



HOW DOES ALL THIS AFFECT YOU?

After all, this is the 64-dollar question, right? If you haven’t figured out the answer

after all this, here’s the simple checklist for you follow:

1. If you are going to play on one of the major professional tours or in one of the

USGA’s three major championships in 2010, you’ll need to get some new irons

and wedges with the new groove geometry and starting learning how they per-

form. They will be required for play in all these events.

2. If you are going to play in one of the lesser USGA championships, you have until

2014 to find new irons and wedges that you like, Until then you will be able to use

what is currently in your bag, or what you buy in 2010 that conforms to the prior

rule regarding groove geometry.

3. If you are going to compete on a minor professional tour, NCAA or any of the

major amateur events around the country, you should contact them to find out ex-

actly when they will begin to implement the new “Condition of Competition” as it

regards to groove geometry.

4. If you have no intention of competing at any level beyond your local club events or

“barbecue circuit”(as it is referred to in South Texas), you are fine with your current

equipment until at least 2024, according to the USGA.

5. If you take frequent mulligans, don’t count OB as stroke and distance, kick back

any putts inside three feet, and play loosely with the rules because you don’t take

golf all that seriously anyway, then don’t lose any sleep over this at all.

22



AUTHORS‘ CONCLUSIONS

The game of golf has been governed by a set of Rules almost since the beginning.

What started out as a simple set of only a few rules has grown to be a quite complex

work, supplemented by extensive “Rulings” on variations of the rules as published by the

United States Golf Association and the Royal & Ancient. The two ruling bodies work to-

gether most of the time to ensure that the game is played the same all over the world.

Over the years, equipment has been ruled non-conforming at times, and the rules

have changed to accommodate technology dating all the way back to the introduction of

the gutta percha ball and steel shafts. Rules have been changed to accommodate center-

shafted putters, cavity back irons, U-grooves, metal woods, oversize drivers, other ball

developments . . . . the list goes on and on. But without rules governing equipment, the

game would be a free-for-all, and that would not be good for golf in these two authors’

opinions.

This new rule will have its share of naysayers, and will change the game slightly for

all of us, but not to that large a degree. And it is likely to stimulate changes in ball con-

struction and even course design if it has a significant impact. Golfers will never abandon

the desire to get better, and the equipment companies will never stop innovating to help

that happen.

The cycle will continue and the game will survive.

23



The

SpinZoneThe Whole Story

About Grooves

“The Spin Zone – The Real Truth About Grooves” was produced under a

grant from EIDOLON Golf, LLC. We invite you to visit EIDOLON’s website

to learn about their fine custom built wedges – www.EidolonGolf.com.

the spin zone, ebook, 2009-12-4

Documents