By Frank Thomas August 15, 2008

Our equipment guru, Golf Digest Technical Advisor Frank Thomas, has the answers to your questions. Click here to submit a question for possible use in this column and you could receive a signed copy of Frank's latest book, "Just Hit It: Our Equipment and Our Game." For more from Frank you can visit his site franklygolf.com. [Note: Each week submitted questions will be reviewed and the best one will receive a signed copy of Frank's book, "Just Hit It."]

GROOVES: SO MANY AFFECTED BY SO FEW

Dear Frank,

Could you please let us have your reaction to the following announcement?

"The United States Golf Association (USGA) today announced revisions to the Rules of Golf, placing new restrictions on the cross sectional area and edge sharpness of golf club grooves. The revisions are designed to restore the challenge of playing shots to the green from the rough by reducing backspin on those shots. The initial focus of the new rules will be competitions involving highly skilled professional golfers and will have little impact on the play of most golfers.

The rules control the cross sectional area of grooves on all clubs, with the exception of drivers and putters, and limit groove edge sharpness on clubs with lofts equal to or greater than 25 degrees (generally a standard 5-iron and above)."

Do you think that this will have the desired effect of re-aligning the professional players' priorities from distance (and to heck with the consequences) back to accuracy, now that it will be harder to impart spin on the ball from the rough and control it the way they currently do?

Looking forward to hearing your views on the matter.

--Ian

Ian,

Your question about the USGA's announcement regarding a groove specification change on August 5, 2008 -- the timing of which is odd, if not inappropriate, on the eve of the PGA Championship, is very important to most golfers for the following reasons:

1. this change will be effective as of January 1, 2010 for elite golfers (PGA Tour, LPGA, Champions Tour etc.) and major championships, such as the US Open

2. the rule will affect major amateur events and championships as of January 1, 2014

3. all clubs manufactured after January 1, 2010 are affected

The rule will affect the rest of us -- approximately 99.5% of the golfing population -- on January 1, 2024; that is, if we don't buy any new clubs after 2010. The USGA indicates that it will revisit this decision in 2020.

We could, I suppose, stack up on a couple of wedges with the present groove configuration for use when our existing wedges wear out. I don't think the USGA will consider that our pre 2010 clubs will conform if they are reconditioned with the original groove configuration -- another blow to the the average golfer.

This really means that for at least 14 years -- and maybe forever -- we will have two sets of rules; one for the elite players and another for the rest of us. This is contrary to, and compromising, the Joint Statement of Principles laid out by the USGA and the R&A in 2002, which states that only one set of rules is desirable.

This bifurcation of the rules opens the door to other changes such as a different ball for the elite players. The whole concept of bifurcation may be a better solution than 99.5% of us being detrimentally affected by the performance of only a few superstars, unless of course the USGA rethinks its position and starts making rules for the majority of golfers, not only the elite.

It is really a shame that so many are affected by the perceived problems caused by so few.

The alternative and better solution would be to grow the rough, change the course set-up and shorten the courses for the majors, or give the world some sound technical and scientific evidence that the game will be more enjoyable and better off after the change.

I am not only disappointed that the USGA has adopted this very questionable and debatable change, but I am also concerned that it is headed down a path which will soon be seriously questioned by its constituents. If such changes don't make intuitive sense to golfers their respect for, and the concomitant authority granted the governing body, decays.

In my opinion, this is not "in the best interests of the game."

Let us hope that the comments and analysis of actual performance and scientific data presented to the USGA & R&A by those who have studied this issue in depth, are made public so the world can review the validity of the decision from a true scientific point of view.

A reversal of this decision may be the only life line available to the USGA which will allow it to focus its energy and attention on the bigger problems the game is now experiencing.

Sorry, Ian, but this needed to be said and the answer to your question is, NO I don't think it will achieve the unclear and questionable goal the USGA has presented. The consequences, however, are distressing to our game that is now ailing and needs some help.

Frank