So you have read and understand the ruling, right? It really, hardly, pertains to you and me, at this point, yet it is the focal point of many a dispute and EVERY analyst’s comments on TV.

What they won’t tell you is how the guys on tour feel about it, or what they are doing in order to avoid it all together.

So the guys on tour have to play a USGA conforming groove as of the first of 2010. While most have complied, there is a loophole that has already surfaced that some players (most notably Phil Mickelson) have begun to exploit.

Back in 1990 there was a settlement between the USGA and PING stemming from a lawsuit, years before, about the production and use of “square grooves” in PING golf clubs.

The settlement of this lawsuit resulted in the “grandfathering” of PING Eye 2 golf clubs for all future rulings, including……..wait for it…….the 2010 USGA groove rule!!!!!!!

So, while the PGA Tour player must play “conforming” grooves (meant to reduce the amount of spin on the golf ball) they CAN PLAY and ARE PLAYING the old PING Eye 2 wedge which is “legal” but not “conforming”.

Follow along?

Good, cause I am already confused.

The only thing stopping all these guys from playing the PING Eye 2 wedge is the availability of that particular club. You see, the settlement of the lawsuit also stated that PING could no longer produce that groove pattern in future clubs so the only club out there is that one PING Eye 2 wedge and the availability is quite limited.

Okay, so there is already a loophole in a ruling that not a single player on tour even wants. Interesting.

So why have the rule at all?

My theory is that the USGA is going to dress this up as a “ruling to bring back the integrity of the game and put a premium on accurate driving, thus bringing some great old courses back into possible consideration for championship play.”

At least that is what I think they would tell you.

What they won’t tell you is that they could just as easily have made rulings to change the one piece of equipment that can change both spin AND distance and that is the golf ball.

Why change the grooves when you can roll back the distance and spin on the ball by changing the very ball itself? Does that not make more sense? The manufacturers change ball design every year, just like wedges, so there is no conflict there, right?

Wrong.

There is a conflict and that conflict is cash. At the heart of this decision is money, in my opinion. Changing the ball, while, seemingly the best idea, also costs the manufacturers, AND the USGA more money. New testing, new submission for conformity, new molds, etc, all cost money.
Changing the grove pattern only costs the manufacturers money. They have to retool their machines to cut a certain size groove and the USGA only has to use the same groove measuring device they have used since, well, forever.

Interesting……………

Anyway, I think that the groove rule is lame and I would not be shocked to see an amendment or a change to it before 2014 when it goes into effect for players other than PGA Tour guys. In all, this seems like a desperate attempt to rein in performance while totally misdirecting that attempt.

Of course, the manufacturers are already on top of this. Titleist and Taylor Made (The Taylor Made wedge will have removable faces and the “conforming” face can be purchased separately) have already released “current USGA conforming” wedges and all the manufacturers will follow next year.

Those of us that will not be playing USGA events or on Tour better stock up before the end of the year………..2024 is a LOOOOONNNNG time away. I, for one, am going to use every advantage I can in this game. It is too tough without the USGA telling me to make it tougher!

Uncategorized