BOMB: Thankfully, I was able to get the last question in to commissioner Finchem yesterday regarding grooves and its possible effect on course setup on the PGA Tour. Here’s what he had to say:
“We have changed our rough heights this year at a number of golf courses and did some fairly meticulous analysis of what happened when we brought those rough heights down a little bit compared to earlier years, and the reason we did that was to set the stage for now measuring what happens on those same golf courses when we shift grooves.
“So this will be a -- you're not going to see us revolutionize our setup the first month next year, but over time we're going to be experimenting with a lot of different ways to set things up because our hope is that this change is going to make the game more interesting to watch from a variety of perspectives, and that would be helpful to us. So we're going to be -- we have more people, more energy, we have this wonderful ShotLink program that tells us everything, so we're going to really, I think, enjoy the process of doing some things differently and playing around with it.”
On the surface, that seems like a great idea. After all, course setups have come under fire in recent years as being too difficult with some hole locations bordering on silly. However, if course setups are relaxed in some manner, isn’t that somewhat offsetting what the groove condition of competition is meant to accomplish? Just asking.
GOUGE: Yeoman’s work, my friend. No, I’m not talking about making the drive to D.C. at the last minute. I’m talking about sorting through Commissioner-speak to get to the meaty details. The question on everybody’s lips these last few days (and on ours for the last few years) is “Will the rule change produce the desired effect?” You can spend months looking at the mountains of research produced by the USGA and even some equipment companies, and still not come to any hard and fast conclusion. Most manufacturers genuinely believe PGA Tour players are great and will adapt. Some players aren't so sure. My favorite came from a conversation I had with Scott Verplank:
"If anybody says they know what’s good for golf, their ego’s either way too big or they’re uninformed.
"For the PGA Tour, that’s a different story. I honestly feel like we should have our own equipment specs. In other words, if you want to play on the PGA Tour, then you’re going to have to conform to the clubs that you have to have more skill to play with. Less effective grooves, smaller driver heads and I don’t think you should be able to anchor a club against yourself in a professional tournament, either. But that’s just my opinion.
And a little later, he added this: "If you went to 240 cc driver heads and V grooves, the whole money list would change a whole lot. There’d be some guys that you would never hear of again."
For Verplank, though, Tiger Woods would still be where he is: "That’s the thing that makes Tiger so good. He still plays with clubs that are old style, and he can hit all the shots. He can change his trajectory and do all that. That’s one reason why he’s so darn good."
Whether some old-school superior set of skills will be more in evidence with the 2010 groove in play is hard to predict, however. Why? Because it's very likely to be a moving target. If course setups, specifically hole locations, aren't as difficult as they have been for the last several years, how will we know exactly what the result of the rule change might be? Will the greens in regulation from the rough percentage (it's about 50 percent right now) be dramatically worse after one event next year? Well, even if it were, there are too many variables in play to know why that might have happened. In fact, I'd bet a year's worth of events aren't enough to know for sure. I'll say it right here: We may never know, and the long run, it might matter in the most subtle ways that make the game better, more efficient, more interesting and perhaps even slightly more environmentally friendly (bye, bye over fertilized rough).
So what to make of what might happen next year with the rule change? I'll let you know the first time somebody's 8-iron approach from the light rough flies over the heads of the gallery behind the green.
Grooves: Standing ground vs. standing by
BOMB: About a week ago we blogged on the topic of a possible reversal on the groove implementation date and I wrote that I simply couldn’t see the PGA Tour leaving the USGA out to dry. Now I’m not so sure.
Mark your calendars boys and girls. This coming Tuesday is a big day for equipment regulation in that we may finally learn who is driving the bus here—the USGA, the PGA Tour or perhaps the equipment companies. And personally I’m dismayed it has even come to this.
Speaking with Stewart Cink, one of four Player Directors on the PGA Policy Board, yesterday at the Travelers Championship, he said a vote would take place next Tuesday and we likely would hear something then. It is not yet clear whether the recommendation will be to implement in 2010 or not (David Toms, another Player Director, said the sentiment was that of “a house divided”). But that’s not the point, here. The point is exactly who is running the show when it comes to making the rules governing equipment.
Sure, the USGA will say it’s not a rule, it’s a condition of competition and anyone can elect to either implement it or not. Hogwash. That is hedging of the highest order. Fact is the USGA didn’t spend three years and who knows how much money researching grooves, then deciding to implement a condition of competition if it wasn’t going to be implemented at the highest level of the game. Does anyone think for one second they would have announced an implementation date if the PGA Tour hadn’t given assurances they were going to go along with it? No way. And in the USGA’s August 5, 2008 release, all major tours and Augusta National were on board. The stated mission was to return driving accuracy as an integral part of the game at the elite level. Has that changed? Do they not have confidence in their data? Of course not. This is about bowing to pressure.
Jim Vernon, USGA President, said in the organization’s annual pre-Open press conference: “The PGA Tour will make its decision at some point as to whether they will implement that condition of competition for 2010. It is likely that if they were not to adopt it for 2010, we certainly would not adopt it for the U.S. Open either.” When those words came out of his mouth I was shocked and disappointed. Sure, the USGA will say, “how could we make players change for one event?” I say, how can you not? You made this condition of competition. You said you were going to implement it in 2010. For goodness sake, man, stand by it. If the PGA Tour wants to do otherwise, let them. But at least have the courage of your convictions. So to the USGA I say, you led this charge and it’s time to start acting like a leader, not a follower.
Pardsy, this is potentially a bigger mess than the spectator areas at Bethpage
GOUGE: The word botched came up yesterday in my conversation with the clearly anti-USGA Joe Ogilvie. His tone, as has been the case repeatedly over the last few months, was very much along the lines that the PGA Tour is the real driving force in golf and the USGA is clueless.
Maybe something was clearly botched in this process. But I for the life of me can't figure it out. Nobody really thinks the rule is impossible to follow. Most manufacturers have told us they will be or already are introducing irons and/or wedges that conform to the rule as written. What seems most unclear is how the rule might be implemented.
The true issue seems to be the staggered implementation of the rule. It was set to apply to the elite professional tours in 2010, USGA and R&A amateur events in 2014, while allowing all pre-2010 groove clubs to be conforming for everybody else through at least 2024. Complicating this scenario slightly are the deadlines for manufacturers, which run through the end of 2010 for the assembly of pre-2010 rule clubs, but starts at the beginning of 2010 for all clubs manufactured after January 1, 2010. (In other words, you can manufacture a bunch of wedges and irons with the pre-2010 groove through the end of this year and then take all of 2010 to assemble and distribute them.)
The staggered implementation seemed to make sense until you realize that the elite professional tours are not "a closed shop," as Ogilvie put it to me. Since you have a qualifying event every week and for the PGA Tour you have a pre-qualifying event every week, Ogilvie estimated that there are 2,500 to 3,000 unique competitors on the PGA Tour. Throw in the LPGA Tour, the European Tour, the Japan Tour and all of their secondary tours and qualifying events, the numbers begin to multiply. You can begin to see a compelling argument that implementation of the rule could be a challenge.
But is it really such a compelling argument? No, it's not. The Rules of Golf are the Rules of Golf, and it is assumed that you are playing by the rules of golf. Nobody checks your bag on the first tee to make sure all your clubs conform. And I'll bet there wasn't an official on the first tee of today's U.S. Senior Open Sectional Qualifier at Fox Chapel Golf Club making sure the 52 competitors all were using conforming golf balls (a potentially difficult issue in light of recent announcements about balls from TaylorMade and Callaway that feature slightly different markings from previous versions that were taken off the conforming golf ball list). No, there wasn't because in golf it is presumed that you already are playing by the rules. It's fundamental to the game itself.
So if the USGA and R&A decided that the groove rule should be imposed for elite professional events starting in 2010, then wouldn't it rightly be assumed that any golfer playing in those events would be using conforming equipment? You bet it woud be. It's no different than assuming that a player who hits his ball against the base of a tree doesn't casually kick it back into the fairway. If he or she couldn't get that equipment, then he or she simply wouldn't play. So if only 12 players could manage to cobble together a full set of conforming equipment to play in the 2010 U.S. Open, then so be it. Because, the fact is, if you made the rule and stuck to the rule, players would demand the right equipment. If you go soft on it, well, then anything is possible, including never implementing the rule at all.
But golf's ruling bodies don't seem willing to exercise that kind of power because, as best I can tell, they don't believe they have that kind of power anymore. Moreover, the leadership of the PGA Tour (starting at the top) seems overly willing to go back on its word, and presumably content to be buffeted along by the statements of tour players whose actual knowledge and experience and understanding of the rule change's implications is cloudy at best and manipulated by the will of certain manufacturers at worst.
I still have very little clarity on whether the rule will produce the desired effect, or even whether that desired effect has changed now, given that no one in a position of power seems nearly as motivated by this rule change as previous statements would indicate.
I can tell you this, though: The rule as currently written will not be a hardship for the playing of the game by average golfers in any meaningful way, shape or form. Not now, not in 2014, not in 2024, not ever. The rule as currently written does present the possibility for uncertainty in the minds of the best players in the game, however. Uncertainty (or as most of us know it, outright fear), I think, makes for a better game at the elite level.
Unfortunately, the only uncertainty in the game right now lies with who's in charge of it.
Mark your calendars boys and girls. This coming Tuesday is a big day for equipment regulation in that we may finally learn who is driving the bus here—the USGA, the PGA Tour or perhaps the equipment companies. And personally I’m dismayed it has even come to this.
Speaking with Stewart Cink, one of four Player Directors on the PGA Policy Board, yesterday at the Travelers Championship, he said a vote would take place next Tuesday and we likely would hear something then. It is not yet clear whether the recommendation will be to implement in 2010 or not (David Toms, another Player Director, said the sentiment was that of “a house divided”). But that’s not the point, here. The point is exactly who is running the show when it comes to making the rules governing equipment.
Sure, the USGA will say it’s not a rule, it’s a condition of competition and anyone can elect to either implement it or not. Hogwash. That is hedging of the highest order. Fact is the USGA didn’t spend three years and who knows how much money researching grooves, then deciding to implement a condition of competition if it wasn’t going to be implemented at the highest level of the game. Does anyone think for one second they would have announced an implementation date if the PGA Tour hadn’t given assurances they were going to go along with it? No way. And in the USGA’s August 5, 2008 release, all major tours and Augusta National were on board. The stated mission was to return driving accuracy as an integral part of the game at the elite level. Has that changed? Do they not have confidence in their data? Of course not. This is about bowing to pressure.
Jim Vernon, USGA President, said in the organization’s annual pre-Open press conference: “The PGA Tour will make its decision at some point as to whether they will implement that condition of competition for 2010. It is likely that if they were not to adopt it for 2010, we certainly would not adopt it for the U.S. Open either.” When those words came out of his mouth I was shocked and disappointed. Sure, the USGA will say, “how could we make players change for one event?” I say, how can you not? You made this condition of competition. You said you were going to implement it in 2010. For goodness sake, man, stand by it. If the PGA Tour wants to do otherwise, let them. But at least have the courage of your convictions. So to the USGA I say, you led this charge and it’s time to start acting like a leader, not a follower.
Pardsy, this is potentially a bigger mess than the spectator areas at Bethpage
GOUGE: The word botched came up yesterday in my conversation with the clearly anti-USGA Joe Ogilvie. His tone, as has been the case repeatedly over the last few months, was very much along the lines that the PGA Tour is the real driving force in golf and the USGA is clueless.
Maybe something was clearly botched in this process. But I for the life of me can't figure it out. Nobody really thinks the rule is impossible to follow. Most manufacturers have told us they will be or already are introducing irons and/or wedges that conform to the rule as written. What seems most unclear is how the rule might be implemented.
The true issue seems to be the staggered implementation of the rule. It was set to apply to the elite professional tours in 2010, USGA and R&A amateur events in 2014, while allowing all pre-2010 groove clubs to be conforming for everybody else through at least 2024. Complicating this scenario slightly are the deadlines for manufacturers, which run through the end of 2010 for the assembly of pre-2010 rule clubs, but starts at the beginning of 2010 for all clubs manufactured after January 1, 2010. (In other words, you can manufacture a bunch of wedges and irons with the pre-2010 groove through the end of this year and then take all of 2010 to assemble and distribute them.)
The staggered implementation seemed to make sense until you realize that the elite professional tours are not "a closed shop," as Ogilvie put it to me. Since you have a qualifying event every week and for the PGA Tour you have a pre-qualifying event every week, Ogilvie estimated that there are 2,500 to 3,000 unique competitors on the PGA Tour. Throw in the LPGA Tour, the European Tour, the Japan Tour and all of their secondary tours and qualifying events, the numbers begin to multiply. You can begin to see a compelling argument that implementation of the rule could be a challenge.
But is it really such a compelling argument? No, it's not. The Rules of Golf are the Rules of Golf, and it is assumed that you are playing by the rules of golf. Nobody checks your bag on the first tee to make sure all your clubs conform. And I'll bet there wasn't an official on the first tee of today's U.S. Senior Open Sectional Qualifier at Fox Chapel Golf Club making sure the 52 competitors all were using conforming golf balls (a potentially difficult issue in light of recent announcements about balls from TaylorMade and Callaway that feature slightly different markings from previous versions that were taken off the conforming golf ball list). No, there wasn't because in golf it is presumed that you already are playing by the rules. It's fundamental to the game itself.
So if the USGA and R&A decided that the groove rule should be imposed for elite professional events starting in 2010, then wouldn't it rightly be assumed that any golfer playing in those events would be using conforming equipment? You bet it woud be. It's no different than assuming that a player who hits his ball against the base of a tree doesn't casually kick it back into the fairway. If he or she couldn't get that equipment, then he or she simply wouldn't play. So if only 12 players could manage to cobble together a full set of conforming equipment to play in the 2010 U.S. Open, then so be it. Because, the fact is, if you made the rule and stuck to the rule, players would demand the right equipment. If you go soft on it, well, then anything is possible, including never implementing the rule at all.
But golf's ruling bodies don't seem willing to exercise that kind of power because, as best I can tell, they don't believe they have that kind of power anymore. Moreover, the leadership of the PGA Tour (starting at the top) seems overly willing to go back on its word, and presumably content to be buffeted along by the statements of tour players whose actual knowledge and experience and understanding of the rule change's implications is cloudy at best and manipulated by the will of certain manufacturers at worst.
I still have very little clarity on whether the rule will produce the desired effect, or even whether that desired effect has changed now, given that no one in a position of power seems nearly as motivated by this rule change as previous statements would indicate.
I can tell you this, though: The rule as currently written will not be a hardship for the playing of the game by average golfers in any meaningful way, shape or form. Not now, not in 2014, not in 2024, not ever. The rule as currently written does present the possibility for uncertainty in the minds of the best players in the game, however. Uncertainty (or as most of us know it, outright fear), I think, makes for a better game at the elite level.
Unfortunately, the only uncertainty in the game right now lies with who's in charge of it.
Groove Rule says what now?
GOUGE: Rain delays are for pansies. But then I guess the USGA is all about being kinder and gentler these days. Heck, they even sound like they’re backing down on the implementation of the groove rule. Here’s what Jim Vernon, USGA President, said yesterday in the organization’s annual pre-Open press conference: “The PGA Tour will make its decision at some point as to whether they will implement that condition of competition for 2010. It is likely that if they were not to adopt it for 2010, we certainly would not adopt it for the U.S. Open either.”
What?! Twitter me this, my friend: Is the USGA afraid of hurting somebody’s (read: “the manufacturers’”) feelings? Are the crying baby tour players like Joe Ogilvie ruling the day, instead of the ruling bodies ruling the day? I’ve read every page of the USGA’s research. The case against sharp-edged voluminous wedge and iron grooves was well made. You can argue all day long whether the USGA’s intentions will be achieved by this rule, but you can’t argue that everybody was on board with the change. The USGA and (according to its Aug. 5, 2008 press release) all other organizations in golf and (according to their relatively tacit but clearly implied approval of the decisions) all manufacturers were clearly (OK, reluctantly in some cases) or at least were willing to make the necessary adjustments in their engineering to develop grooves that conform to the new stipulations.
Now, when we’re actually within shouting distance of the implementation date, the spoiled brat factor seems to be taking over. And the USGA and the PGA Tour seem on the verge of caving to it. They seem as steadfast as bunker sand, the dry stuff, not what they’ve got at Bethpage right now.
In the great scheme of things, it really doesn’t matter when the rule is implemented. It matters if it is implemented, of course. And I’m sure that would never change, right? The USGA is pretty sure about that, aren’t they? But then again, they were pretty sure about a lot of things on Aug. 5, 2008. If the rule and the timing were good then, they should still be good now. Then again, maybe it wasn’t such a good idea Aug. 5, 2008. Say it ain’t so, partner…
BOMB: First, I think it is complete b.s. that I’m here swimming at Bethpage while you enjoy all the creature comforts of the home office digs in Wilton, Conn. On the plus side, with all this rain coming down we have lots of guys fighting for power cords, so the opportunity to blog gives me squatters rights over someone who wants to update their Facebook page or go on Twitter.
I certainly understand where you’re coming from in that if the USGA backs off, then what credibility will they have as a rulemaking body for equipment? What they should do is say, “The tours can do anything they want, but if you’re playing for the national championship next year you’re using these grooves. Period.” If they said that do you really think the PGA Tour would even consider not going with the new groove condition of competition? Not a chance, in my opinion.
That said, the measurement and manufacturing of these grooves is not exactly so simple a caveman can do it. No manufacturer has unveiled their new duller groove 2010 wedge as of yet, and many say that getting the groove to meet a more precise test is doubly difficult because the finishing process is more skill than science. But if manufacturers are claiming difficulty in making these clubs, I lay the blame on them. They have known for a long time this day was coming, and they are smart people. A year should be enough time to figure it out. As for the players, the time to voice a concern was then, not now. Did they think the USGA was lying when they said it would reduce effectiveness about 50 percent?
But all this hullabaloo and angst you are putting forth buddy is moot. I honestly can’t see how the tour goes back on this. When the new groove statute was announced they said they were all in. Are they going to leave the USGA hanging out to dry? I just can’t see it.
You mentioned August 5, 2008. For the record, here is what appeared as part of a story on pgatour.com: "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 January 1, 2010," PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem said in a statement. "We do so with full confidence that the testing and analytical procedure was extensive 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," Finchem added.
So, the tour supported it and did so with “full confidence” based on their own ShotLink data. Tell me, my friend. Has ANYTHING changed other than players and manufacturers whining during that time? Does the tour no longer have confidence in its ShotLink data?
If I were a betting man, bank on the new grooves being used next year at Pebble Beach for the 2010 U.S. Open. And every other tour event, too. And if it’s not, some people in high places have an awful lot of explaining to do.
What?! Twitter me this, my friend: Is the USGA afraid of hurting somebody’s (read: “the manufacturers’”) feelings? Are the crying baby tour players like Joe Ogilvie ruling the day, instead of the ruling bodies ruling the day? I’ve read every page of the USGA’s research. The case against sharp-edged voluminous wedge and iron grooves was well made. You can argue all day long whether the USGA’s intentions will be achieved by this rule, but you can’t argue that everybody was on board with the change. The USGA and (according to its Aug. 5, 2008 press release) all other organizations in golf and (according to their relatively tacit but clearly implied approval of the decisions) all manufacturers were clearly (OK, reluctantly in some cases) or at least were willing to make the necessary adjustments in their engineering to develop grooves that conform to the new stipulations.
Now, when we’re actually within shouting distance of the implementation date, the spoiled brat factor seems to be taking over. And the USGA and the PGA Tour seem on the verge of caving to it. They seem as steadfast as bunker sand, the dry stuff, not what they’ve got at Bethpage right now.
In the great scheme of things, it really doesn’t matter when the rule is implemented. It matters if it is implemented, of course. And I’m sure that would never change, right? The USGA is pretty sure about that, aren’t they? But then again, they were pretty sure about a lot of things on Aug. 5, 2008. If the rule and the timing were good then, they should still be good now. Then again, maybe it wasn’t such a good idea Aug. 5, 2008. Say it ain’t so, partner…
BOMB: First, I think it is complete b.s. that I’m here swimming at Bethpage while you enjoy all the creature comforts of the home office digs in Wilton, Conn. On the plus side, with all this rain coming down we have lots of guys fighting for power cords, so the opportunity to blog gives me squatters rights over someone who wants to update their Facebook page or go on Twitter.
I certainly understand where you’re coming from in that if the USGA backs off, then what credibility will they have as a rulemaking body for equipment? What they should do is say, “The tours can do anything they want, but if you’re playing for the national championship next year you’re using these grooves. Period.” If they said that do you really think the PGA Tour would even consider not going with the new groove condition of competition? Not a chance, in my opinion.
That said, the measurement and manufacturing of these grooves is not exactly so simple a caveman can do it. No manufacturer has unveiled their new duller groove 2010 wedge as of yet, and many say that getting the groove to meet a more precise test is doubly difficult because the finishing process is more skill than science. But if manufacturers are claiming difficulty in making these clubs, I lay the blame on them. They have known for a long time this day was coming, and they are smart people. A year should be enough time to figure it out. As for the players, the time to voice a concern was then, not now. Did they think the USGA was lying when they said it would reduce effectiveness about 50 percent?
But all this hullabaloo and angst you are putting forth buddy is moot. I honestly can’t see how the tour goes back on this. When the new groove statute was announced they said they were all in. Are they going to leave the USGA hanging out to dry? I just can’t see it.
You mentioned August 5, 2008. For the record, here is what appeared as part of a story on pgatour.com: "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 January 1, 2010," PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem said in a statement. "We do so with full confidence that the testing and analytical procedure was extensive 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," Finchem added.
So, the tour supported it and did so with “full confidence” based on their own ShotLink data. Tell me, my friend. Has ANYTHING changed other than players and manufacturers whining during that time? Does the tour no longer have confidence in its ShotLink data?
If I were a betting man, bank on the new grooves being used next year at Pebble Beach for the 2010 U.S. Open. And every other tour event, too. And if it’s not, some people in high places have an awful lot of explaining to do.
Is Tiger changing the driver paradigm?
BOMB: So the big equipment news out of the Memorial this past week was Tiger Woods’ realization that a little more loft in his driver would be a good thing. Given that his launch angle has always resided somewhere in the 9-degree area while the tour average is above 11 degrees, last week’s change to a 10-degree driver made sense. And you certainly couldn’t argue with the results.
But Woods aside, fact is the PGA Tour has seen a significant jump in average driver loft over the last seven years—about 1.5 degrees on average. Part of the reason for the increase is that lofts at the low end and on the high end have done a near complete flip-flop, witnessed by these numbers from the Memorial in 2002 and last week:
Memorial 2002
Drivers in play at 10 degrees of loft or higher: 5
Drivers in play at 8 degrees of loft or lower: 28
Memorial 2009
Drivers in play at 10 degrees of loft or higher: 28
Drivers in play at 8 degrees of loft or lower: 9
There is no single reason for the boost in driver lofts among pros. Rather, a number of equipment technologies have come together resulting in the need for additional lift. Driver technology, lower-spinning, solid-core balls and the emergence of launch monitors all have contributed.
So what can the average Joe or Jane learn from this? Plenty. In fact, driver loft for them may be more significant than for tour players. But you were way ahead on that one, weren’t you, my friend. I recall an article you did in 2003 urging players to use more loft. It’s about time folks started to listen, if not to you, then to the best player in the world.
GOUGE: Truthfully, I think both of us have been suggesting that Tiger change his thinking on the driver for years, but the fact is he could use a toilet seat on the end of a broom handle and beat us all left-handed.
I'm more intrigued by the idea of smaller club size though. Forty percent of the field at the Memorial were using drivers under 460 cc in volume. What exactly is Tiger giving up by going with a smaller head? He shouldn't be losing ballspeed, assuming he hits everything in the center of the face. It's why the driver the USGA uses on its swing robot isn't 460 cubic centimeters, either. Tiger's prototype driver is probably a little closer in size to what he used when he played miraculously flawless golf in 2000-01 when he won the Tiger Slam, only its face technology is much better engineered.
I believe there still are some valid arguments to be made that today's drivers that push size and shape limit dimensions work against the creation of clubhead speed for the fastest swingers. They may help with offcenter hit ballspeed, but I also believe that feature can be engineered into smaller heads, too. It's why big-time companies like Callaway and TaylorMade aren't all caught up in size anymore. It's why Callaway spent a lot of time and effort improving the aerodynamics of heads like the FT-iQ, and why TaylorMade isn't worried that the R9 was only 420 cc.
The question is what should average golfers do? I wouldn't recommend they switch to a smaller driver, not because I don't think it wouldn't help, but because 99 percent of the smaller drivers out there don't display the latest technology (R9 at 420 cc, would be an exception, of course). The small heads that you might find today are borderline museum pieces. Easily, there are ways to better engineer 400 cc heads today. It's just that the rush to the 460 cc limit has dictated most current driver introductions. Maybe that will change solely because the No. 1 player in the world doesn't use one anymore. Tiger does a lot of things most human golfers can't imagine, but more loft and a smaller head are things every golfer might want to try. They might help us just as much as they helped him.
Balata and Persimmon? Not a chance
BOMB: Have you seen the recent Wall Street Journal column by John Paul Newport in which he details his experience playing a round with a wooden driver and balata golf balls? Mr. Newport was clearly in a near state of rapture from the experience, which, having conducted similar experiments in the past, I’m not quite sure I understand.
OK, I get it—there is a certain part of me that loves looking at the old wooden clubs and even playing with them once in a while. But only once in a while. And although you can debate the nostalgic merits of playing with such equipment, there is no debating the performance difference, which Mr. Newport appears to do when he says, “But how much have we really gained? This is a philosophical question with no definitive answer.”
Actually, there is a definitive answer. As we wrote on the very first page of this year’s Hot List section, the average handicap of all golfers has decreased almost two strokes in the last 15 years, from 16.5 in 1994 to 14.6 in 2008. The drop for women was even greater at 2.5 strokes. These figures also coincide with the greatest explosion in technology that golf has witnessed.
Mr. Newport goes on to say, “I’m not sure I’d mind going back to wooden clubs and less modern balls, provided everyone else did the same. (You can keep balata, which cuts too easily.) In terms of challenge, based on my experience, there really isn’t that much difference between the old and the new. Trying to keep a short, spinny ball in play with a wooden driver is not easy, but it’s no more formidable a task than trying to keep a longer ball in play with a metal driver.”
And a record player is as good as an iPod. And a betamax is as good as a DVD player. And I guess Mr. Newport is still banging out his copy on a typewriter. No more formidable a task? Let’s be serious. In fact, I issue this challenge to Mr. Newport. I just looked up your index and I see it’s a 3.6. Well done—certainly beats my current 4.7. Play your next 20 rounds with the wooden driver and less modern balls and let’s see the number at the end of it. I guarantee you that it won’t be 3.6. Using these clubs may warm the heart and soul and that is fine—but to say it is no more formidable a task than trying to keep a longer ball in play with a metal driver? I don’t think so. But feel free to prove me wrong.
GOUGE: Not to defend ill-constructed logic, but our friend Mr. Newport might be onto something, even though he doesn’t know it. The latest modern technology isn’t always better for everyone. Now, that doesn’t mean we need to go back to playing that old vaudeville act of balata and persimmon, but it does mean we need to raise an eyebrow when somebody tries to claim their new product goes farther. Those claims may be justifiable because they can be reproduced on a robot, or they may be possible in theory, but for many golfers those new technologies may do more harm than good.
Ultralong driver shafts (anything at 46 inches or more) are a case in point. A longer, lighter shaft with a big forgiving titanium face may produce more clubhead speed and subsequently more ballspeed, but there's no guarantee that average golfers will make decent, repeatable contact with such clubs. That might be why tour players don't use shafts in the 46-inch range. ANd I doubt you'd find a club fitter who'd recommend that kind of driver shaft length to anyone but the rarest exceptions.
Here's another modern trend that's somewhat infuriating. Iron sets that have jacked up lofts in the short irons and bunched up lofts in the long irons. No wonder average goflers can't get good distance spacing. When you have just two degrees of spacing between long irons, average golfers just won't hit them consistently different distances. Therefore, in all but the most gifted hands they're dang near useless. That's why you need to get with a good fitter, and not just click and grab your next set of clubs.
Despite the quest for greed, modern technology is miles better and decades smarter. That should be obvious. It's made most of us pathetic golfers actually not want to shoot ourselves and/or quit. Has it made golf courses have to add length (and expense?). Some, certainly, but I haven't played a golf course yet that needed to be lengthened for me, and my handicap is better than the national average. Will modern technology ever make the game easy? No. Way. Unless you practice every day, the game's impossible, no matter how much perimeter weighting you have at your disposal. Modern technology just lets us think it isn't every once in a while.
OK, I get it—there is a certain part of me that loves looking at the old wooden clubs and even playing with them once in a while. But only once in a while. And although you can debate the nostalgic merits of playing with such equipment, there is no debating the performance difference, which Mr. Newport appears to do when he says, “But how much have we really gained? This is a philosophical question with no definitive answer.”
Actually, there is a definitive answer. As we wrote on the very first page of this year’s Hot List section, the average handicap of all golfers has decreased almost two strokes in the last 15 years, from 16.5 in 1994 to 14.6 in 2008. The drop for women was even greater at 2.5 strokes. These figures also coincide with the greatest explosion in technology that golf has witnessed.
Mr. Newport goes on to say, “I’m not sure I’d mind going back to wooden clubs and less modern balls, provided everyone else did the same. (You can keep balata, which cuts too easily.) In terms of challenge, based on my experience, there really isn’t that much difference between the old and the new. Trying to keep a short, spinny ball in play with a wooden driver is not easy, but it’s no more formidable a task than trying to keep a longer ball in play with a metal driver.”
And a record player is as good as an iPod. And a betamax is as good as a DVD player. And I guess Mr. Newport is still banging out his copy on a typewriter. No more formidable a task? Let’s be serious. In fact, I issue this challenge to Mr. Newport. I just looked up your index and I see it’s a 3.6. Well done—certainly beats my current 4.7. Play your next 20 rounds with the wooden driver and less modern balls and let’s see the number at the end of it. I guarantee you that it won’t be 3.6. Using these clubs may warm the heart and soul and that is fine—but to say it is no more formidable a task than trying to keep a longer ball in play with a metal driver? I don’t think so. But feel free to prove me wrong.
GOUGE: Not to defend ill-constructed logic, but our friend Mr. Newport might be onto something, even though he doesn’t know it. The latest modern technology isn’t always better for everyone. Now, that doesn’t mean we need to go back to playing that old vaudeville act of balata and persimmon, but it does mean we need to raise an eyebrow when somebody tries to claim their new product goes farther. Those claims may be justifiable because they can be reproduced on a robot, or they may be possible in theory, but for many golfers those new technologies may do more harm than good.
Ultralong driver shafts (anything at 46 inches or more) are a case in point. A longer, lighter shaft with a big forgiving titanium face may produce more clubhead speed and subsequently more ballspeed, but there's no guarantee that average golfers will make decent, repeatable contact with such clubs. That might be why tour players don't use shafts in the 46-inch range. ANd I doubt you'd find a club fitter who'd recommend that kind of driver shaft length to anyone but the rarest exceptions.
Here's another modern trend that's somewhat infuriating. Iron sets that have jacked up lofts in the short irons and bunched up lofts in the long irons. No wonder average goflers can't get good distance spacing. When you have just two degrees of spacing between long irons, average golfers just won't hit them consistently different distances. Therefore, in all but the most gifted hands they're dang near useless. That's why you need to get with a good fitter, and not just click and grab your next set of clubs.
Despite the quest for greed, modern technology is miles better and decades smarter. That should be obvious. It's made most of us pathetic golfers actually not want to shoot ourselves and/or quit. Has it made golf courses have to add length (and expense?). Some, certainly, but I haven't played a golf course yet that needed to be lengthened for me, and my handicap is better than the national average. Will modern technology ever make the game easy? No. Way. Unless you practice every day, the game's impossible, no matter how much perimeter weighting you have at your disposal. Modern technology just lets us think it isn't every once in a while.
Golfsmith and MacGregor will focus on contemporary classic
News came this week that one of golf’s historically iconic brands (and one that has struggled mightily to be relevant in recent years) has found a new source of energy. MacGregor, a 112-year-old brand that for decades was the choice of 59 major championship winners including most notably Jack Nicklaus, will now be part of the family of brands controlled by golf retail giant Golfsmith International.
The deal was announced Wednesday by the Austin, Texas-based retailer, which also owns and distributes exclusively familiar brands like Lynx, Snake Eyes and Killer Bee. Greg Norman had acquired a substantial stake in MacGregor in 2006, and was serving as chairman. Terms of the deal were not disclosed. As part of the deal, Norman, who earlier this year signed a product endorsement contract with TaylorMade-adidas Golf will step down, and MacGregor’s Albany, Ga.-based facility will be closed.
Meanwhile, Golfsmith officials believe the traditional respect for the MacGregor brand will provide an opportunity to attract customers to its retail stores and website. “Game improvement clubs will be where we think most of the sales will be, but we will not ignore the heritage of the MacGregor line in forgings,” said David Lowe, vice president, proprietary and consumables merchandising at Golfsmith International. “We will have some beautiful forgings, but our whole approach will be what we’d call contemporary classics with a lot of the traditional MacGregor shapes in contemporary configurations.”
Lowe said Golfsmith will bring the research and development side of the MacGregor brand under its design partner Jeff Sheets Golf Design. Industry veteran Sheets is the former head of research and development for Golfsmith.
Lowe said the plan would be for the MacGregor line to complement the premium products from major manufacturers (Callaway, Cleveland, Cobra, Nike, TaylorMade and Titleist, among others) already in Golfsmith’s retail outlets. He expected drivers would fall in the $200-plus range, while irons would be in the $400-$600 range. New products are expected to be launch by the end of the year, with a more extensive line set for 2010.
“We did not buy MacGregor to compromise the business of our premium brand partners,” he said. “We don’t want to compete with our vendor partners. We want to create supplementary offerings with MacGregor that addresses a new audience for Golfsmith that may not have been addressed as broadly as we’d like it to be.”
While MacGregor in the last 10 years had ramped up its presence on the PGA Tour with endorsement contracts with Aaron Baddeley and Jose Maria Olazabal, as well as Greg Norman’s recent presence, the plan currently will be for the familiar MacGregor logo not to be seen on the PGA Tour.
“For the foreseeable future, no,” said Lowe. “But forever is a long time.
“We have a great respect for the history and the tradition of the brand as being recognized for the majority of its life for being one of the preeminent brands in this industry,” Lowe said. “We’re going to treat it as such, and we’re going to make product that is consistent with its history.”
The deal was announced Wednesday by the Austin, Texas-based retailer, which also owns and distributes exclusively familiar brands like Lynx, Snake Eyes and Killer Bee. Greg Norman had acquired a substantial stake in MacGregor in 2006, and was serving as chairman. Terms of the deal were not disclosed. As part of the deal, Norman, who earlier this year signed a product endorsement contract with TaylorMade-adidas Golf will step down, and MacGregor’s Albany, Ga.-based facility will be closed.
Meanwhile, Golfsmith officials believe the traditional respect for the MacGregor brand will provide an opportunity to attract customers to its retail stores and website. “Game improvement clubs will be where we think most of the sales will be, but we will not ignore the heritage of the MacGregor line in forgings,” said David Lowe, vice president, proprietary and consumables merchandising at Golfsmith International. “We will have some beautiful forgings, but our whole approach will be what we’d call contemporary classics with a lot of the traditional MacGregor shapes in contemporary configurations.”
Lowe said Golfsmith will bring the research and development side of the MacGregor brand under its design partner Jeff Sheets Golf Design. Industry veteran Sheets is the former head of research and development for Golfsmith.
Lowe said the plan would be for the MacGregor line to complement the premium products from major manufacturers (Callaway, Cleveland, Cobra, Nike, TaylorMade and Titleist, among others) already in Golfsmith’s retail outlets. He expected drivers would fall in the $200-plus range, while irons would be in the $400-$600 range. New products are expected to be launch by the end of the year, with a more extensive line set for 2010.
“We did not buy MacGregor to compromise the business of our premium brand partners,” he said. “We don’t want to compete with our vendor partners. We want to create supplementary offerings with MacGregor that addresses a new audience for Golfsmith that may not have been addressed as broadly as we’d like it to be.”
While MacGregor in the last 10 years had ramped up its presence on the PGA Tour with endorsement contracts with Aaron Baddeley and Jose Maria Olazabal, as well as Greg Norman’s recent presence, the plan currently will be for the familiar MacGregor logo not to be seen on the PGA Tour.
“For the foreseeable future, no,” said Lowe. “But forever is a long time.
“We have a great respect for the history and the tradition of the brand as being recognized for the majority of its life for being one of the preeminent brands in this industry,” Lowe said. “We’re going to treat it as such, and we’re going to make product that is consistent with its history.”
The Rules in the tolerance zone
BOMB: Well, pardsy, here we go again.
Bless those folks who just insist on designing and manufacturing in the tolerance zone and then every so often cross the line. Gives us something to write about. Latest case in point being today’s communique from Callaway Golf regarding its Tour i ball that has a sidestamp with a single dot on each side of the words Tour i. For our purposes we’ll refer to it as Tour i single dot. According to Callaway, they found that a “very small number” of its Tour i single dot balls exceeded the USGA’s weight limit by “approximately half the weight of a U.S. dollar bill.” Callaway said the total number is less than one percent of all Tour I balls produced.
OK, fair enough. Mistakes happen. Besides, this isn’t our first rodeo with companies being caught speeding, so to speak. This makes an even half-dozen instances in the last 26 months, starting with some hot faces on some drivers from Nike, Callaway, Cleveland and Cobra in 2007 and continuing with TaylorMade having some of its TP Red golf balls exceed the initial velocity limit. Also, just as with the TaylorMade ball situation, the company is asking the ball be removed from the List of Conforming Golf Balls (which will happen June 3) and a new sidestamped ball, which we will call the Tour i double dot, will replace it. That said, Callaway is not implementing an exchange program (nor, for that matter, did TaylorMade). The reason being that unless a Condition of Competition is posted, you can play with a ball not on the conforming list.
And here’s where I have a problem with the Rules of Golf. The condition of competition is posted for tour events and high-level amateur events and pretty much every participant knows that so I don’t worry about one of these balls being put in play accidentally and causing a DQ. But at club events, such as a club championship, the condition of competition is almost never in effect, meaning the Tour i single dot can be used. Why? Because according to USGA Rules Decision 5-1/101, such balls are “presumed to conform and the onus of proof is on the person alleging the ball does not.”
Now look, I’m all for innocent until proven guilty. But how am I going to be able to tell when Mr. Hack ‘n Chop is hitting it a few yards farther than I’m used to seeing and he’s using a Tour i single dot whether or not it’s one of the ball’s that is over the limit? I’m not. I know it doesn’t matter from a performance standpoint. But it is irksome that it is possible for a ball whose physical properties exceed the limits set forth by the USGA to be used to post a score for a USGA handicap or play in an event, even if it is at the club level. Worse, I don't seem to be able to get a satisfactory answer on why that is so. In the meantime buddy, I’m putting a scale in my bag right now so don’t even think of putting one of those balls on the peg when you’re playing me.
GOUGE: I think the difference between the rules of golf and the rules of almost any other sport lies in the fact that in golf we assume everybody is extremely committed to playing the game by the rules. We assume nobody is trying to pull a fast one. The problem for golf now is the rules governing equipment have become so necessarily precise that the potential exists for unintentionally pulling a fast one.
Like the true nature of the game, Callaway is calling a penalty on itself. Which is fine, perhaps noble. But when it gets right down to it, what we have is the potential for unintentional disqualification. For instance, how many of those playing in local or sectional qualifying for the U.S. Open, the U.S. Women's Open and the U.S. Senior Open might on occasion buy their own golf balls. I would conservatively say more than half of the thousands of entrants in those events buy their own golf balls. Is there a chance someone playing in those qualifiers might use a ball that is not on the conforming list? Yes. If someone notices on the fourth hole that she's playing a single dot Callaway instead of a double dot Callaway, then she's done, see-ya, goodbye, thanks for playing. Since Callaway only started shipping the double-dot Tour i golf balls today, there's a chance someone might have a sleeve of the old balls in his bag at U.S. Open Sectional qualifying on June 8. It's a real problem, so if you're one of the 9,000 entrants for the U.S. Open, one of the 1,278 entrants in the U.S. Women's Open or one of the estimated 3,000 entrants for the U.S. Senior Open, consider yourself forewarned.
But who's checking? Well, no one really. Does it matter? Not in real terms, but spiritually, it's everything. In the end, of course, it's the player's responsibility. That's the nature of the rules of golf, of course. The assumption that everybody plays by the rules certainly is valid, assuming that everybody knows specifically what the rules are. That's not always obvious, especially in cases like this. The fact that it's happening so frequently to big companies clearly means we're in a stage where every manufacturer is pursuing every element of innovation to the nth micron. Indeed, we could suggest that the level of intricasy in innovation is in danger of exceeding the ability to manufacture such intricasy in the vast numbers required in today's marketplace. Or it could just be growing pains.
But on the cusp of the new groove rule, which features what many would call a staggeringly more complex set of parameters than any current equipment regulation, it is not a great leap to suggest that the uncertainty is only just beginning. If you think manufacturers are trying to innovate in the tolerance zone when it comes to spring-like effect and golf ball conformance, you have to believe it will be more of the same when it comes to grooves. Those in the know say that deciphering conforming vs. non-conforming grooves within this microscopic gray zone requires a microscope that costs more than my first house. If you think six problems in the last two years is a big deal, buckle up, brother. If manufacturers keep dancing in the danger zone, it could get really nasty.
Bless those folks who just insist on designing and manufacturing in the tolerance zone and then every so often cross the line. Gives us something to write about. Latest case in point being today’s communique from Callaway Golf regarding its Tour i ball that has a sidestamp with a single dot on each side of the words Tour i. For our purposes we’ll refer to it as Tour i single dot. According to Callaway, they found that a “very small number” of its Tour i single dot balls exceeded the USGA’s weight limit by “approximately half the weight of a U.S. dollar bill.” Callaway said the total number is less than one percent of all Tour I balls produced.
OK, fair enough. Mistakes happen. Besides, this isn’t our first rodeo with companies being caught speeding, so to speak. This makes an even half-dozen instances in the last 26 months, starting with some hot faces on some drivers from Nike, Callaway, Cleveland and Cobra in 2007 and continuing with TaylorMade having some of its TP Red golf balls exceed the initial velocity limit. Also, just as with the TaylorMade ball situation, the company is asking the ball be removed from the List of Conforming Golf Balls (which will happen June 3) and a new sidestamped ball, which we will call the Tour i double dot, will replace it. That said, Callaway is not implementing an exchange program (nor, for that matter, did TaylorMade). The reason being that unless a Condition of Competition is posted, you can play with a ball not on the conforming list.
And here’s where I have a problem with the Rules of Golf. The condition of competition is posted for tour events and high-level amateur events and pretty much every participant knows that so I don’t worry about one of these balls being put in play accidentally and causing a DQ. But at club events, such as a club championship, the condition of competition is almost never in effect, meaning the Tour i single dot can be used. Why? Because according to USGA Rules Decision 5-1/101, such balls are “presumed to conform and the onus of proof is on the person alleging the ball does not.”
Now look, I’m all for innocent until proven guilty. But how am I going to be able to tell when Mr. Hack ‘n Chop is hitting it a few yards farther than I’m used to seeing and he’s using a Tour i single dot whether or not it’s one of the ball’s that is over the limit? I’m not. I know it doesn’t matter from a performance standpoint. But it is irksome that it is possible for a ball whose physical properties exceed the limits set forth by the USGA to be used to post a score for a USGA handicap or play in an event, even if it is at the club level. Worse, I don't seem to be able to get a satisfactory answer on why that is so. In the meantime buddy, I’m putting a scale in my bag right now so don’t even think of putting one of those balls on the peg when you’re playing me.
GOUGE: I think the difference between the rules of golf and the rules of almost any other sport lies in the fact that in golf we assume everybody is extremely committed to playing the game by the rules. We assume nobody is trying to pull a fast one. The problem for golf now is the rules governing equipment have become so necessarily precise that the potential exists for unintentionally pulling a fast one.
Like the true nature of the game, Callaway is calling a penalty on itself. Which is fine, perhaps noble. But when it gets right down to it, what we have is the potential for unintentional disqualification. For instance, how many of those playing in local or sectional qualifying for the U.S. Open, the U.S. Women's Open and the U.S. Senior Open might on occasion buy their own golf balls. I would conservatively say more than half of the thousands of entrants in those events buy their own golf balls. Is there a chance someone playing in those qualifiers might use a ball that is not on the conforming list? Yes. If someone notices on the fourth hole that she's playing a single dot Callaway instead of a double dot Callaway, then she's done, see-ya, goodbye, thanks for playing. Since Callaway only started shipping the double-dot Tour i golf balls today, there's a chance someone might have a sleeve of the old balls in his bag at U.S. Open Sectional qualifying on June 8. It's a real problem, so if you're one of the 9,000 entrants for the U.S. Open, one of the 1,278 entrants in the U.S. Women's Open or one of the estimated 3,000 entrants for the U.S. Senior Open, consider yourself forewarned.
But who's checking? Well, no one really. Does it matter? Not in real terms, but spiritually, it's everything. In the end, of course, it's the player's responsibility. That's the nature of the rules of golf, of course. The assumption that everybody plays by the rules certainly is valid, assuming that everybody knows specifically what the rules are. That's not always obvious, especially in cases like this. The fact that it's happening so frequently to big companies clearly means we're in a stage where every manufacturer is pursuing every element of innovation to the nth micron. Indeed, we could suggest that the level of intricasy in innovation is in danger of exceeding the ability to manufacture such intricasy in the vast numbers required in today's marketplace. Or it could just be growing pains.
But on the cusp of the new groove rule, which features what many would call a staggeringly more complex set of parameters than any current equipment regulation, it is not a great leap to suggest that the uncertainty is only just beginning. If you think manufacturers are trying to innovate in the tolerance zone when it comes to spring-like effect and golf ball conformance, you have to believe it will be more of the same when it comes to grooves. Those in the know say that deciphering conforming vs. non-conforming grooves within this microscopic gray zone requires a microscope that costs more than my first house. If you think six problems in the last two years is a big deal, buckle up, brother. If manufacturers keep dancing in the danger zone, it could get really nasty.
Nothing right now is bigger than small
BOMB: I remember a line from an old Abbott & Costello movie, “Ride ‘Em Cowboy,” where Costello is riding a bucking bronco and one of the ranch hands says, “The little guy is plenty good.”
That line comes to mind because over the last couple of weeks, the little guy has been plenty good when it comes to putter companies. Two weeks ago at the Italian Open, John Daly finished second using Boccieri Golf’s Heavy Putter Mid-Weight K-4 model—a bit of success that had 10 players using a putter from the Ridgefield, Conn.-based company at this past week’s Irish Open. This past week on the PGA Tour also saw Zach Johnson ring up his fifth PGA Tour win in the last 25 months (Only Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson have more during that span) using a SeeMore FGP Stainless putter. Although a SeeMore user for many years, Johnson just put this model in the bag at the Players championship. In a time when it is damn near impossible for the little guy to compete with the behemoths, exposure such as this is critical.
And there is no shortage of cases to illustrate the point. SeeMore received some 50,000 orders after Payne Stewart won the 1999 U.S. Open with one of its putters. And at the time of Nick Price's 1994 PGA Championship win with Bobby Grace's odd-looking Fat Lady Swings mallet, Grace was making putterheads in his St. Petersburg, Fla., garage, producing a handful at a time. And after Price's victory? "I had 25,000 orders the next day," said Grace. "I went from a Toyota to a Lexus overnight."
Still, like a person who enjoys a few cocktails, the buzz lasts only so long. But last week, once again the little guys were plenty good.
GOUGE: It is worth remembering that all of the really cool golf companies of the last three decades started small. Whether it’s TaylorMade, Callaway, Odyssey, Adams or a handful of others, small stands tall. Even a behemoth like Nike got its golf equipment start from Tom Stites and Impact Golf Technologies, which looked more like a converted body shop back in the day than the center of the golf innovation universe.
But true innovation doesn’t require an army. It only takes one bright guy to think of something nobody else has thought of before. Of course, sometimes getting that idea to reality often requires an army. That’s what makes the individual success stories of Boccieri and SeeMore appealing. Good ideas from small operators usually are nothing more than a secret shared by a few friends. Getting John Daly to use your putter and to have him finish second with it seems a less likely scenario than winning Powerball. (And that should be a warning to those of you messing around with a blowtorch in your garage.)
Moreover, the rewards of that unusual confluence of events are less certain. Your good idea, once endorsed, inspires those with more ammunition to engineer around your good idea, leaving you in their wake. Success today does not mean you’ve arrived. Just look at where our friend Bobby Grace is these days, lost in the wake of the dismantling of MacGregor Golf. His ideas are no less intriguing. Business sometimes gets in the way.
The beautiful thing is both SeeMore and Boccieri Golf, along with the previous success of Yes! Golf and Rife Putters, shows the putter is the one frontier in golf equipment that seems more open to possibility than any other. But then it’s always been that way, hasn’t it? How else can you explain the Ping Anser coming along in a field of Cash-Ins and Ironmasters? In 20 years will a SeeMore FGP Stainless be the standard shape? Will putters with 200-gram weights inserted in the grip end a la Boccieri’s Mid-Weight be commonplace? Never say never.
That line comes to mind because over the last couple of weeks, the little guy has been plenty good when it comes to putter companies. Two weeks ago at the Italian Open, John Daly finished second using Boccieri Golf’s Heavy Putter Mid-Weight K-4 model—a bit of success that had 10 players using a putter from the Ridgefield, Conn.-based company at this past week’s Irish Open. This past week on the PGA Tour also saw Zach Johnson ring up his fifth PGA Tour win in the last 25 months (Only Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson have more during that span) using a SeeMore FGP Stainless putter. Although a SeeMore user for many years, Johnson just put this model in the bag at the Players championship. In a time when it is damn near impossible for the little guy to compete with the behemoths, exposure such as this is critical.
And there is no shortage of cases to illustrate the point. SeeMore received some 50,000 orders after Payne Stewart won the 1999 U.S. Open with one of its putters. And at the time of Nick Price's 1994 PGA Championship win with Bobby Grace's odd-looking Fat Lady Swings mallet, Grace was making putterheads in his St. Petersburg, Fla., garage, producing a handful at a time. And after Price's victory? "I had 25,000 orders the next day," said Grace. "I went from a Toyota to a Lexus overnight."
Still, like a person who enjoys a few cocktails, the buzz lasts only so long. But last week, once again the little guys were plenty good.
GOUGE: It is worth remembering that all of the really cool golf companies of the last three decades started small. Whether it’s TaylorMade, Callaway, Odyssey, Adams or a handful of others, small stands tall. Even a behemoth like Nike got its golf equipment start from Tom Stites and Impact Golf Technologies, which looked more like a converted body shop back in the day than the center of the golf innovation universe.
But true innovation doesn’t require an army. It only takes one bright guy to think of something nobody else has thought of before. Of course, sometimes getting that idea to reality often requires an army. That’s what makes the individual success stories of Boccieri and SeeMore appealing. Good ideas from small operators usually are nothing more than a secret shared by a few friends. Getting John Daly to use your putter and to have him finish second with it seems a less likely scenario than winning Powerball. (And that should be a warning to those of you messing around with a blowtorch in your garage.)
Moreover, the rewards of that unusual confluence of events are less certain. Your good idea, once endorsed, inspires those with more ammunition to engineer around your good idea, leaving you in their wake. Success today does not mean you’ve arrived. Just look at where our friend Bobby Grace is these days, lost in the wake of the dismantling of MacGregor Golf. His ideas are no less intriguing. Business sometimes gets in the way.
The beautiful thing is both SeeMore and Boccieri Golf, along with the previous success of Yes! Golf and Rife Putters, shows the putter is the one frontier in golf equipment that seems more open to possibility than any other. But then it’s always been that way, hasn’t it? How else can you explain the Ping Anser coming along in a field of Cash-Ins and Ironmasters? In 20 years will a SeeMore FGP Stainless be the standard shape? Will putters with 200-gram weights inserted in the grip end a la Boccieri’s Mid-Weight be commonplace? Never say never.
A good smash in the face
GOUGE: You know how it is, partner, when you're going along and think you have everything figured out and then something smashes you right in the face? Sometimes you never recover from it. Sometimes you're Ricky Hatton and everything ends right there with you sprawled on the ground wondering how you got into this in the first place and, oh by the way, where exactly are my legs. Well, it appears it's time for the golf industry, particularly the ball industry, to get smashed in the face.
While golf's manufacturers have had their collective knickers in a twist the last few years over the groove rule, and while most R&D types have been feverishly working on new groove patterns for irons and wedges, all along they have held a hole card in their long-running pursuit of mitigating the difficulty of the challenge of the game. That hole card, of course, is the golf ball.
Here's how the line of reasoning for the manufacturers goes: "We'll try to get back some of the performance we lost with our best interpretation of the new groove rule stipulations (conceding, of course, that our best ain't going to be as effective as the old groove). But we'll push the new limit as much as we can with new patterns and tighter manufacturing of edge radii and even rougher flat surfaces on the new wedges. But what we can't do with our best efforts of club design and manufacturing, we'll make up for with tweaks to the golf ball. In other words, surely one of the smart guys over in our ball department can come up with some super new flubber material that restores spin on the short game shots without any loss of distance.
"Yes, that's exactly what we'll do."
I can tell you I've heard just as much from more than one manufacturer. Well, guess what, boys and girls. You can't do that. The rules will not allow that kind of a golf ball, should it ever exist, to be permitted to conform to the rules. It's little known, but pound for pound it might be the most powerful sentence in the entire 192 pages of my copy of the Rules of Golf. It's Appendix III-1 or what I like to call the Manny Pacquiao of golf ball rules.
Only a sentence long, it basically shuts out future golf ball innovation aimed at overcoming the new groove rule: "The ball must not be substantially different from the traditional and customary form and make. The material and construction of the ball must not be contrary to the purpose and intent of the Rules."
I'm no wizard, but the purpose and intent of the new groove rule is to reduce spin generation. Presumably (and I could be wrong, but I don't see exactly how unless somebody discovers a new meaning for words in the English language), you can't have a ball designed to increase spin in some new way for iron and wedge shots and have that ball be considered conforming to the rules of golf.
That, my friend, is what it's like to be smashed in the face.
BOMB: Chopper boy, often I get frustrated by your affinity for minutiae, but this time I have to say I’m intrigued. Any discussion with tour players on this topic inevitably ends with something along these lines: “Well, we’ll figure it out. Besides, our ball guys tell us they’re working on something.”
Well, from what you just pointed out, the big boys might just have to figure it out on their own.
Still, somewhat disturbing is the vague nature of the language—although that’s what makes it so powerful. Manufacturers seeking to mitigate spin loss through the ball might come up with something only to be told, “Good try, but not gonna fly.” Of course, I’m guessing if they don’t want to get “smashed in the face” as you so eloquently put it, they should run these ideas by the folks in the Far Hills before getting too far along in the process.
GOUGE: Confused by my focusing on the minutiae? Here's a solution: Let's have two sets of rules. One set full of minutiae for the guys who are playing for millions of dollars each week; and one set that can be written on a match book for those of us playing $5 nassaus.
BOMB: That sound you hear is a can of worms being opened. Regardless, this little bit of legalese in the Rule Book could be just the thing that makes the upcoming condition of competition on grooves for elite players have the effect the USGA wants after all.
While golf's manufacturers have had their collective knickers in a twist the last few years over the groove rule, and while most R&D types have been feverishly working on new groove patterns for irons and wedges, all along they have held a hole card in their long-running pursuit of mitigating the difficulty of the challenge of the game. That hole card, of course, is the golf ball.
Here's how the line of reasoning for the manufacturers goes: "We'll try to get back some of the performance we lost with our best interpretation of the new groove rule stipulations (conceding, of course, that our best ain't going to be as effective as the old groove). But we'll push the new limit as much as we can with new patterns and tighter manufacturing of edge radii and even rougher flat surfaces on the new wedges. But what we can't do with our best efforts of club design and manufacturing, we'll make up for with tweaks to the golf ball. In other words, surely one of the smart guys over in our ball department can come up with some super new flubber material that restores spin on the short game shots without any loss of distance.
"Yes, that's exactly what we'll do."
I can tell you I've heard just as much from more than one manufacturer. Well, guess what, boys and girls. You can't do that. The rules will not allow that kind of a golf ball, should it ever exist, to be permitted to conform to the rules. It's little known, but pound for pound it might be the most powerful sentence in the entire 192 pages of my copy of the Rules of Golf. It's Appendix III-1 or what I like to call the Manny Pacquiao of golf ball rules.
Only a sentence long, it basically shuts out future golf ball innovation aimed at overcoming the new groove rule: "The ball must not be substantially different from the traditional and customary form and make. The material and construction of the ball must not be contrary to the purpose and intent of the Rules."
I'm no wizard, but the purpose and intent of the new groove rule is to reduce spin generation. Presumably (and I could be wrong, but I don't see exactly how unless somebody discovers a new meaning for words in the English language), you can't have a ball designed to increase spin in some new way for iron and wedge shots and have that ball be considered conforming to the rules of golf.
That, my friend, is what it's like to be smashed in the face.
BOMB: Chopper boy, often I get frustrated by your affinity for minutiae, but this time I have to say I’m intrigued. Any discussion with tour players on this topic inevitably ends with something along these lines: “Well, we’ll figure it out. Besides, our ball guys tell us they’re working on something.”
Well, from what you just pointed out, the big boys might just have to figure it out on their own.
Still, somewhat disturbing is the vague nature of the language—although that’s what makes it so powerful. Manufacturers seeking to mitigate spin loss through the ball might come up with something only to be told, “Good try, but not gonna fly.” Of course, I’m guessing if they don’t want to get “smashed in the face” as you so eloquently put it, they should run these ideas by the folks in the Far Hills before getting too far along in the process.
GOUGE: Confused by my focusing on the minutiae? Here's a solution: Let's have two sets of rules. One set full of minutiae for the guys who are playing for millions of dollars each week; and one set that can be written on a match book for those of us playing $5 nassaus.
BOMB: That sound you hear is a can of worms being opened. Regardless, this little bit of legalese in the Rule Book could be just the thing that makes the upcoming condition of competition on grooves for elite players have the effect the USGA wants after all.
A $1.1 million value, yours for just $69.99
BOMB: Well, it wasn’t quite Bobby Nichols holding off Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus to win the 1964 PGA Championship using a putter he bought for five bucks out of a barrel at Louisville's Owl Creek Country Club, but you have to love Jerry Kelly cashing a check for more than $1.1 million at the Zurich Classic of New Orleans using a Cleveland Classic 3 flat stick that he bought for $69.99 at a Nevada Bob’s in Madison, Wis., just before Christmas. Comes from the same family of putters honored in the 2009 Hot List.
Not only is it heartening to see a PGA Tour player actually reach into his pocket once in a while, but it also proves the point that even the price point equipment can, in some instances at least, hold its own in the performance area, too. Of course, going cheap isn’t always going to work. Joe Durant tried out the $23 a dozen Srixon TriSpeed ball this week and didn’t come close to making the cut.
So it leaves me wondering if Kelly just lucked out or the cheap stuff is now nearly as good as the not-so-cheap stuff? I mean, you’re the cheap-is-good guy. What say you?
GOUGE: Well, if you're looking for technological sophistication and engineering dexterity and manufacturing gymnastics, a cast putter with a milled face isn't going to require having a pass key at NASA. So it shouldn't be $300. That said, the skill and diligence to get a putter right can be reflected in any design, regardless of cost. The fact that Jerry Kelly runs through more in the value of his golf balls IN A WEEK than he's spent on his putter for the year shows that spending a lot these days isn't a requirement.
But to me the big takeaway from Kelly's purchase is what happens if this was a wedge and it's a year later? Stay with me, but Kelly clearly isn't the first pro to pick up a club at a local golf shop and put it in his bag. But with the groove rule changes set to go in place next year, aren't we creating a situation where a casual purchase could lead to an accidental disqualification? One of the many discussions that needs to take place is how the groove rule is going to be applied in a practical sense. Will there be microscopes on the first tee? What about the equipment used in Monday qualifiers? What about lesser tours? What about section events and the PGA National Professional Championship? (A section event qualifies you for the National Club Pro and the National Club Pro gets you into the PGA Championship. Can't really have people qualifying for one event using different equipment rules, can you? I don't know. Maybe you can.) And don't give me this nonsense about it's only going to apply to PGA Tour events. It doesn't make much sense to me to have a Monday qualifier event under one set of rules and then force the guy who gets through it to switch to a different set of equipment for Thursday's first round.
I'm guessing we'll have some clarity to this situation in the coming months. I would expect a conforming list of irons and wedges at some point in the near future, just like we have for drivers. But that's only a marginal first step in this process. It's a tiny problem in scope, but within that little world, it's a growing headache for manufacturers and elite golfers alike.
Not only is it heartening to see a PGA Tour player actually reach into his pocket once in a while, but it also proves the point that even the price point equipment can, in some instances at least, hold its own in the performance area, too. Of course, going cheap isn’t always going to work. Joe Durant tried out the $23 a dozen Srixon TriSpeed ball this week and didn’t come close to making the cut.
So it leaves me wondering if Kelly just lucked out or the cheap stuff is now nearly as good as the not-so-cheap stuff? I mean, you’re the cheap-is-good guy. What say you?
GOUGE: Well, if you're looking for technological sophistication and engineering dexterity and manufacturing gymnastics, a cast putter with a milled face isn't going to require having a pass key at NASA. So it shouldn't be $300. That said, the skill and diligence to get a putter right can be reflected in any design, regardless of cost. The fact that Jerry Kelly runs through more in the value of his golf balls IN A WEEK than he's spent on his putter for the year shows that spending a lot these days isn't a requirement.
But to me the big takeaway from Kelly's purchase is what happens if this was a wedge and it's a year later? Stay with me, but Kelly clearly isn't the first pro to pick up a club at a local golf shop and put it in his bag. But with the groove rule changes set to go in place next year, aren't we creating a situation where a casual purchase could lead to an accidental disqualification? One of the many discussions that needs to take place is how the groove rule is going to be applied in a practical sense. Will there be microscopes on the first tee? What about the equipment used in Monday qualifiers? What about lesser tours? What about section events and the PGA National Professional Championship? (A section event qualifies you for the National Club Pro and the National Club Pro gets you into the PGA Championship. Can't really have people qualifying for one event using different equipment rules, can you? I don't know. Maybe you can.) And don't give me this nonsense about it's only going to apply to PGA Tour events. It doesn't make much sense to me to have a Monday qualifier event under one set of rules and then force the guy who gets through it to switch to a different set of equipment for Thursday's first round.
I'm guessing we'll have some clarity to this situation in the coming months. I would expect a conforming list of irons and wedges at some point in the near future, just like we have for drivers. But that's only a marginal first step in this process. It's a tiny problem in scope, but within that little world, it's a growing headache for manufacturers and elite golfers alike.
Bomb & Gouge Continues
