 |  |  |  |  |
| FrontPageGolf |
News Commentary Opinion
| Copyright MMX, Front Page Golf. All Rights Reserved. www.FrontPageGolf.com is a trademark of FrontPageGolf. |
Lies, damn lies and statistics
The case against the groove rules changes
By ED TRAVIS
The case against the groove rules changes
By ED TRAVIS
Mark Twain, who didn’t have a very high opinion of golf
wrote, "Figures often beguile me particularly when I
have the arranging of them myself; in which case the
remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with
justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies,
damned lies, and statistics.'"
With that in mind…
One year ago we were in the throes of the groove-change
controversy and in fact only a month away from having it
implemented for professionals (and so-called elite
amateurs) thanks to the ready cooperation of the PGA
Tour, LPGA Tour and other play-for-pay organizations who
did not want to be on the wrong side of either the United
States Golf Association nor the Royal & Ancient Golf Club.
For those who may have forgotten or who had more
important things occurring in their lives, a quick refresher
is in order.
There are some things over the years in golf that have
been constant. The golf swing is still recognizable after
500 years as is the course but innovations in equipment
have never stopped nor unfortunately have the entrenched
defenders of the status quo, often from the position as
rulers of the game.
The former resulted most recently in “game changing”
designs and the use titanium and graphite plus creation
of the multi-layer solid core plastic covered ball. The latter
went through all kinds of contortions to mitigate distance
increases resulting from the aforementioned new ideas
citing as the reason to “preserve par” or the equally
specious “not obsolete all those fine old golf courses.”
Since the USGA was either asleep at the switch or simply
not concerned with what was occurring, in the early 2000s
they suddenly became aware the new equipment designs
and materials had coalesced and combined with
tremendous improvements in agronomy and player
physical conditioning to produce a jump in driving
distance at the top levels of the game.
The reaction by our ruling body was to place restrictions
on the equipment but since they had not reacted in a
timely manner to the single biggest cause of the distance
increase, the introduction of solid core multi-layer balls
with soft covers, then and still typified by Acushnet’s
Titleist Pro V1, they were left with few options to preserve
what they saw as golf’s traditions. They did however place
restrictions on the upper end of ball performance, the
length of clubs, allowable club head size and how much
trampoline effect a clubface could have. But all these
restrictions did not really rein in what, by their definition,
was excessive distance especially on tee shots.
wrote, "Figures often beguile me particularly when I
have the arranging of them myself; in which case the
remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with
justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies,
damned lies, and statistics.'"
With that in mind…
One year ago we were in the throes of the groove-change
controversy and in fact only a month away from having it
implemented for professionals (and so-called elite
amateurs) thanks to the ready cooperation of the PGA
Tour, LPGA Tour and other play-for-pay organizations who
did not want to be on the wrong side of either the United
States Golf Association nor the Royal & Ancient Golf Club.
For those who may have forgotten or who had more
important things occurring in their lives, a quick refresher
is in order.
There are some things over the years in golf that have
been constant. The golf swing is still recognizable after
500 years as is the course but innovations in equipment
have never stopped nor unfortunately have the entrenched
defenders of the status quo, often from the position as
rulers of the game.
The former resulted most recently in “game changing”
designs and the use titanium and graphite plus creation
of the multi-layer solid core plastic covered ball. The latter
went through all kinds of contortions to mitigate distance
increases resulting from the aforementioned new ideas
citing as the reason to “preserve par” or the equally
specious “not obsolete all those fine old golf courses.”
Since the USGA was either asleep at the switch or simply
not concerned with what was occurring, in the early 2000s
they suddenly became aware the new equipment designs
and materials had coalesced and combined with
tremendous improvements in agronomy and player
physical conditioning to produce a jump in driving
distance at the top levels of the game.
The reaction by our ruling body was to place restrictions
on the equipment but since they had not reacted in a
timely manner to the single biggest cause of the distance
increase, the introduction of solid core multi-layer balls
with soft covers, then and still typified by Acushnet’s
Titleist Pro V1, they were left with few options to preserve
what they saw as golf’s traditions. They did however place
restrictions on the upper end of ball performance, the
length of clubs, allowable club head size and how much
trampoline effect a clubface could have. But all these
restrictions did not really rein in what, by their definition,
was excessive distance especially on tee shots.
Artwork courtesy of Golfsmith Inc.
It certainly doesn't look like the new smaller grooves
(roughly 40 percent less volume than pre-2010 grooves)
had much if any effect, not to say a significant effect.
So, what did happen?
To use a catch phrase from the PGA Tour, “These guys
are good.” The toursters compensated because they have
the talent to do so. They changed to a slightly softer cover
ball or added loft to their wedges or made a marginally
different move at the ball when the circumstances called
for it.
So nothing, nada, zilch, zero – whatever the rolled back
grooves were supposed to accomplish in corralling
distance the pros hit the ball did not work.
What did work was the spike in wedge sales as amateurs
scrambled to stock up on wedges with the old box-groove
design, so they were out a little bit of money and wedge
makers had a sales bonanza. In fact, amateurs are
allowed to use the old box-grooved irons until 2024,
unless of course they happen to buy a new set of clubs
between now and then. In any event the poorest golfers
are saddled with less efficient grooves considering they
do not have the skills professionals do nor will they start
playing softer cover balls since hard cover balls go further
off the tee – the cycle comes full circle and still does not
make sense.
And in case it didn't strike you, a really bad thing
happened. Pros are playing be one set of rules and the
rest of us by a different set which of course the USGA has
said in the past was a bad thing but now rationalizes as
“for the good of the game.”
It’s all silliness, silliness based on the USGA’s mistaken
belief that par is something sacred and a few old courses
will not stand up to today’s players. Golf fans love to see
the professionals go low, maybe even the lower the better,
and the crying about some courses becoming too short
for modern play is the same wail made a century ago
when the rubbery ball replaced the gutta percha ball and
before that when the gutty supplanted the feathery.
Silliness.
What’s next? The lords of Far Hills say they aren’t
planning to but a safe bet is next they will place more
restrictions on the golf ball. They have done the testing,
denied disclosure of the results and are saying they have
no plans to but just wait. Silliness.
(roughly 40 percent less volume than pre-2010 grooves)
had much if any effect, not to say a significant effect.
So, what did happen?
To use a catch phrase from the PGA Tour, “These guys
are good.” The toursters compensated because they have
the talent to do so. They changed to a slightly softer cover
ball or added loft to their wedges or made a marginally
different move at the ball when the circumstances called
for it.
So nothing, nada, zilch, zero – whatever the rolled back
grooves were supposed to accomplish in corralling
distance the pros hit the ball did not work.
What did work was the spike in wedge sales as amateurs
scrambled to stock up on wedges with the old box-groove
design, so they were out a little bit of money and wedge
makers had a sales bonanza. In fact, amateurs are
allowed to use the old box-grooved irons until 2024,
unless of course they happen to buy a new set of clubs
between now and then. In any event the poorest golfers
are saddled with less efficient grooves considering they
do not have the skills professionals do nor will they start
playing softer cover balls since hard cover balls go further
off the tee – the cycle comes full circle and still does not
make sense.
And in case it didn't strike you, a really bad thing
happened. Pros are playing be one set of rules and the
rest of us by a different set which of course the USGA has
said in the past was a bad thing but now rationalizes as
“for the good of the game.”
It’s all silliness, silliness based on the USGA’s mistaken
belief that par is something sacred and a few old courses
will not stand up to today’s players. Golf fans love to see
the professionals go low, maybe even the lower the better,
and the crying about some courses becoming too short
for modern play is the same wail made a century ago
when the rubbery ball replaced the gutta percha ball and
before that when the gutty supplanted the feathery.
Silliness.
What’s next? The lords of Far Hills say they aren’t
planning to but a safe bet is next they will place more
restrictions on the golf ball. They have done the testing,
denied disclosure of the results and are saying they have
no plans to but just wait. Silliness.
Some more time passed and the logic seemed to
become “since what we’ve done to restrict the equipment
isn’t cutting it and we can’t tell Tiger Woods to stop
working out nor can we change course setup other than in
our own championships, we should penalized golfers for
hitting the ball too far.”
Narrow the fairways? Certainly. Grow up the rough? A
given.
But let’s go a step further. Reduce the size of the grooves
in the shorter clubs so when those long knockers are
hitting to the green the ball will have less spin and
therefore not stop as predictably thereby ruining players
finely honed control.
The apparent reasoning continued that less efficient, i.e.,
less aggressive, grooves will cause these big hitters to
use shorter clubs off the tee in order to keep the ball in the
fairway because the new shallower grooves will really
make a difference, particularly out of the rough.
So a logical question is, “After a whole year has past, with
touring pros and those ams playing in USGA
championships using clubs having the new grooves, did
the desired effect occur?” Put another way, have drives
gotten shorter with a commensurate change in efficiency
of hitting the green?
The short answer – NO.
Based on numbers from the PGA Tour 2010 season it’s
not even close. As everyone except apparently the USGA
knows, Tour driving distance leveled off about five
seasons ago and 2010 was right in the previously
observed range. What is more significant was the number
of players who averaged over a set yardage, say 300
yards. In 2010 it was 12, preceded by 13 in 2009, 13 in
2008, 18 in 2007 and 20 in 2006.
Doesn’t look like much changed this past year.
What about greens in regulation? That showed a jump
with 20 players averaging more than 70 percent GIR
compared to 3, 5, 3 and 5 the previous four years.
Definitely significant…perhaps.
According to the Tour numbers the average distance from
the pin after hitting from the rough from between 100 and
125 yards (the Tour stats are numbing) were in line with
the past two years-10 players in 2010 averaged 23 feet or
less, 13 in 2009 and 12 in 2008. Finally the raw scoring
average in 2010 was somewhat better with 11 pros
averaging less than 70 strokes per round versus six in
2009, one in 2008, one in 2007 and five in 2006.
become “since what we’ve done to restrict the equipment
isn’t cutting it and we can’t tell Tiger Woods to stop
working out nor can we change course setup other than in
our own championships, we should penalized golfers for
hitting the ball too far.”
Narrow the fairways? Certainly. Grow up the rough? A
given.
But let’s go a step further. Reduce the size of the grooves
in the shorter clubs so when those long knockers are
hitting to the green the ball will have less spin and
therefore not stop as predictably thereby ruining players
finely honed control.
The apparent reasoning continued that less efficient, i.e.,
less aggressive, grooves will cause these big hitters to
use shorter clubs off the tee in order to keep the ball in the
fairway because the new shallower grooves will really
make a difference, particularly out of the rough.
So a logical question is, “After a whole year has past, with
touring pros and those ams playing in USGA
championships using clubs having the new grooves, did
the desired effect occur?” Put another way, have drives
gotten shorter with a commensurate change in efficiency
of hitting the green?
The short answer – NO.
Based on numbers from the PGA Tour 2010 season it’s
not even close. As everyone except apparently the USGA
knows, Tour driving distance leveled off about five
seasons ago and 2010 was right in the previously
observed range. What is more significant was the number
of players who averaged over a set yardage, say 300
yards. In 2010 it was 12, preceded by 13 in 2009, 13 in
2008, 18 in 2007 and 20 in 2006.
Doesn’t look like much changed this past year.
What about greens in regulation? That showed a jump
with 20 players averaging more than 70 percent GIR
compared to 3, 5, 3 and 5 the previous four years.
Definitely significant…perhaps.
According to the Tour numbers the average distance from
the pin after hitting from the rough from between 100 and
125 yards (the Tour stats are numbing) were in line with
the past two years-10 players in 2010 averaged 23 feet or
less, 13 in 2009 and 12 in 2008. Finally the raw scoring
average in 2010 was somewhat better with 11 pros
averaging less than 70 strokes per round versus six in
2009, one in 2008, one in 2007 and five in 2006.