GOUGE: Remember all that talk about tougher course conditions on tour placing a premium on driving accuracy. By my calculations, (a) those course conditions never happened, or (b) consistent driving accuracy still doesn't matter all that much on a week-by-week basis for earning the most money on the PGA Tour. My numbers say the correlation between driving accuracy and success (i.e., money rank) is still around 0.17. For those of you who didn't major in statistics and made it through college without taking any science or math what that means is that, at least from this statistical analysis, hitting it in the fairway impacts a player's earnings potential on a week-in, week-out basis on the PGA Tour only slightly more than whether he chooses the chicken or the fish for lunch.

I point to the chart I ran in the March 9 issue of Golf World. In other words, it doesn't matter if you're exceptionally accurate or exceptionally straight off the tee. Neither seems to predict consistently high finishes on the PGA Tour. In fact, if you take the top 30 players on the PGA Tour in money, their average rank in driving accuracy right now is 88. If you take the top 30 in driving accuracy, the average rank in money is 81. That to me almost eerily suggests a near inverse relationship between accuracy off the tee and making money.

Even if you look at statistics on a tournament-by-tournament basis, you are not enthused that driving it straight is a prerequisite for success. Only seven times in the 21 tournaments with driving accuracy statistics did the winner of the tournament finish in the top 25 percent of the field in driving accuracy. Only five times did the winner finish in the top 10 percent of the field in driving accuracy. Eight times was the winner ranked in the bottom third of the field in driving accuracy. Assuming an average field of 75 players making the cut, the average winner wouldn't have finished in the top 30 in the field in driving accuracy (31 or so, by my figuring). 
Forgetting for a moment how Ben Hogan would be horrified by that sort of laissez-faire approach to course management, let's just remind everyone that the whole structure of the USGA's argument for changing the design stipulations governing grooves is because of this very premise, namely that hitting it in the fairway at a consistently high rate needs to be one of the four cornerstones of achieving a level of excellence in golf (hitting it far off the tee, hitting it to the fairway, hitting it to the target on the green, putting it in the hole). Is it still true that it's better to attack the green/pin from the fairway than from the rough? It may not be, shouldn't it be? If it isn't that big a deal, then let's dispense with rough altogether. Will a change in groove volume have the effect of making it more difficult to attack a pin from the rough? Clearly, there is evidence to suggest that is the case, to say nothing of the fact that if it weren't better grooves would never have been pursued (and achieved) as a design imperative.

It's a hypothetical, of course, but maybe tour conditions are so much on the edge that getting close to a tight pin is equal part skill and equal part luck, regardless of where your starting point might be or what you're holding in your hands when you try to make contact with the ball. If you grew the grass higher would it solve all these "problems," or would it create others? Look at what's happening in the USGA's showcase event, if you're not sure. (I urge those of you who have an interest in this subject to submit your thoughts to the USGA on this rule change.) Maybe the USGA's grooves proposal is the brightest solution ever conceived. Maybe it's the worst idea ever. Or maybe it needs a little more time. But right now the evidence on one tour seems pretty convincing. Whether that's reason enough to render all current golf clubs obsolete is something cooler heads need to consider.

BOMB: There was a line in ?Ball Four? that read, ?Tell your statistics to shut up.? Applies here. Now, you know me. I?m a big stats guy. But I definitely adhere to the old saw that ?Figures can lie and liars can figure.? OK, fine, accuracy isn?t as important as it used to be. My answer to that is, ?So what?? I just can?t take it when I hear things such as the ?the correlation between accuracy and success is zero? and ?guys can hit it anywhere and make birdie? because I?m sorry, it?s just not true.

The top 10 players on last year?s money list?I think we can all agree that would qualify as being successful?were a cumulative 347 UNDER PAR from inside 125 yards when playing from the FAIRWAY and were a cumulative 52 OVER PAR when playing from the same distance from the ROUGH. But it makes no difference, right?

Further, I also don?t necessarily agree that the lack of accuracy has done anything other than make the better players win more often. In the 20 years prior to the launch of the Titleist Pro V1 and the major shift to solid-core, multilayer golf balls, the average accuracy rank of the top money winner on the PGA Tour was 53. Not exactly Calvin Peete or Fred Funk, is it? Granted, it?s been a lot worse since then, but the top dogs have been Tiger Woods (5 times) and Vijay Singh (2 times). Not exactly choppers. Some of the leading money winners in the 20 previous years were Craig Stadler, Hal Sutton, Corey Pavin and Tom Lehman. All fine players but not exactly a Murderers Row of golf.

My point, if I?ve confused you, is that although accuracy is down I don?t think it matters. A good shot is a good shot, whether from rough or fairway. The chart I previously pointed to shows there is indeed a penalty for hitting it in the rough. About a third of all players who have recorded a top-10 finish this year have finished in the top 20 in driving accuracy the week of their top-10 finishes. About a third have been in the bottom 30 in accuracy the week of their top 10s. The rest are in the middle. The average is 31st in accuracy. There is still room at the inn for the Jim Furyk?s and Fred Funk?s. Is driving it straight a requisite for success? No. But it certainly helps. Ask Phil Mickelson if finishing fifth in accuracy at Pebble helped him win that week. Or Zach Johnson, who finished second in accuracy at Augusta and then sixth at the AT&T. Or Fred Funk, who was first in winning in Mexico, or Scott Verplank who was eighth at the Nelson or Paul Goydos who was second at Sony. Or K.J. Choi who was second at Memorial. I?m sure hitting a few fairways mattered to them.

Anyway, enough. Know what really matters? It?s what you think about all this?especially if you have an opinion on the USGA?s proposed groove rule. And you don?t have to tell us. You can tell the USGA?s equipment czar Dick Rugge. At the end of the USGA?s press release on grooves it states: Written comments regarding these proposed changes governing grooves are welcomed and should be sent to the USGA, attention Dick Rugge, P.O. Box 708, Far Hills, NJ  07931, Fax 908-234-0138, e-mail: drugge@usga.org.  Written comments received later than Aug. 1, 2007, will not be considered.

I only ask that you carefully think about the proposal and send a thoughtful comment. In our last meeting with Rugge last week he said that he more than welcomes comments from everyday golfers on the matter. So there you go. It?s like voting. If you don?t vote, don?t complain.

Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images