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.

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.

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.

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.