GOUGE: Remember early last week when I relayed a story Terry Dill told me about J.B. Holmes bashing a 5-iron from the light rough 220 yards to land comfortably on the green on Colonial's first hole? Dill had a look at Holmes' lie and reasoned that with the new grooves that kind of shot might fly onto the second tee. Well, the folks at Acushnet, parent company of Holmes' club sponsor Cobra, offered this wrinkle to Dill's story about Holmes' bomb-and-gouge episode: Seems, according to Acushnet, that J.B.'s already using an iron with grooves that would conform to the new rule.

Let's assume the word from Acushnet is gospel (we're sure it is, but we can't be certain because the USGA hasn't released a list of 2010 rule-conforming irons yet). There are only a few things one can then take from the Colonial story. 1) The new rule's not going to make much difference on iron shots; 2) In terms of its impact on scoring, maybe this is just a wedge rule; 3) Why was Acushnet/Titleist so apoplectic about the implementation of this rule and the hardships it was going to cause for players when its most prototypical bomb-and-gouger won't be hurt by it? 4) Why do we need this rule if it's not going to penalize bomb-and-gougers in a way that fundamentally alters the tilting of the axis around which modern elite golf currently rotates?

My thoughts on 1-4: 1): Let's not overreact to one shot in a practice round by a tour player. 2): If it's just a wedge rule, it's not fulfilling its intent to reward driving accuracy directly. Assuming more approach shots are still hit with clubs other than wedges, then iron shots from the rough should be significantly punished to at least the same degree as wedge shots. 3): Is Titleist and are other ball manufacturers, as well, more concerned about having enough time to develop a ball technology response to the new grooves? It's a theory. 4): There has been and there will be much time and money spent because of this rule. Average golfers will at some point be asked to change their equipment (I would argue, given golf's natural tendency toward peer pressure, that point in practical terms will come sooner than 2024, but maybe that's just me). So, given all that time, money and inconvenience, if the rule doesn't completely alter the universe (in this admittedly very narrow, but fundamentally enormous way) then it shouldn't be, should it?

But for now I'm going to stick with No. 1: Let's not overreact to one shot in a practice round by a tour player.

BOMB: Lets start here. Whether it should or shouldn’t be, it’s a done deal. So lets everyone just get past that. The question of whether it will actually accomplish anything, however, is a completely different animal.

So lets use J.B. and some others as examples. If we believe (and we have no reason not to) that about 30 percent of tour players are currently using irons with grooves that conform, can any fan tell me which players those are because they have seen a noticeable difference in the way the ball reacts for these players versus other players on tour? Anyone? Didn’t think so. So that certainly backs up your contention that it is primarily a wedge rule and that the apocalypse may not be upon us.

But what it really might be showing is that players who have not yet tried the new grooves might do well to get going on it. More than anything, players who already have experience playing conforming grooves in their irons, as Tiger Woods hinted at, are going to be way ahead of their counterparts.
 

As for the ball manufacturers and club manufacturers trying to design their way around the rule, best of luck. Word is that at least one major manufacturer has already submitted a groove design to the USGA that conforms to the new groove rule but was not allowed because it provided too much spin. The preamble to Appendix II and Appendix III of the Rules of Golf (which essentially gives the USGA wide-ranging power to disallow equipment designed to get around a rule) is going to become language a lot of manufacturers are going to become familiar with in a hurry I’m afraid. Indeed, and I'll admit we're burying the lead here but the news just came across my desk as I was typing this, a notice sent to manufacturers today (click thumbnail to read the notice) makes it pretty clear that any enhancements not covered by the new rule but affecting spin will not be tolerated. The new language, attached here, reiterates the idea of the intent of the rule, namely: “The objective of this change is to limit the effectiveness of grooves on shots from the rough to the effect of a traditional V-groove design.”  That very easily could mean there won’t be any meaningful innovation in grooves or face pattern that might enhance spin production ever again. Of course, you could argue that if the USGA spent all this time and money developing this rule, why did they allow such a loophole to develop five months before the rule is supposed to go into effect? You could make that argument, but we won't. We'll just ask the question. That and other questions will not sit well with the golf manufacturing community. And that sounds a lot like World War III.