Interesting article in todays SMH on limiting u grooves.

"The US Golf Association and the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews said clubs with U-shaped grooves hitting modern urethane-covered golf balls produced excessive spin from the rough and should be modified. "

http://www.smh.com.au/news/...

What i don't understand is why the USGA and RANDA don't make a rule about the golf ball materials or its COR. Aren't too many other ball sports without rules on the ball construction.

At the end of the day, manufacturers will continue improving the ball with better technology/materials, and most probably have the same amount of spin from v-grooves as they do now with u-grooves soon enough.

[url="http://www.usga.org/news/20..."]

This is the link to USGA's proposal, also the new proposal on increasing the amount of 'adjustability' for woods and irons.

Which wedges have u grooves on them.

QUOTE: Jza80 @ Mar 1 2007, 12:11 PM

What i don't understand is why the USGA and RANDA don't make a rule about the golf ball materials or its COR. Aren't too many other ball sports without rules on the ball construction.

At the end of the day, manufacturers will continue improving the ball with better technology/materials, and most probably have the same amount of spin from v-grooves as they do now with u-grooves soon enough.

I think it is because there is no trade off they can make with balls. To change the balls characteristic by tightening up the parameters they would be reducing the opportunity for "saleable" development. By allowing greater adjustability to clubs as a trade-off they are giving the club manufacturers a new avenue to develop product.

QUOTE: Veefore @ Mar 1 2007, 08:02 PM

I think it is because there is no trade off they can make with balls. To change the balls characteristic by tightening up the parameters they would be reducing the opportunity for "saleable" development. By allowing greater adjustability to clubs as a trade-off they are giving the club manufacturers a new avenue to develop product.

Golfers have to buy golf balls regularly cause they wear out and get lost, not because of new golf ball technology. New golf ball technology does not result in a net gain of global golf ball sales.

Also too, wouldn't it look pretty silly if in a few years time, pro's are still hitting the same wedge shots from the rough with V-grooves and getting the same amount of spin they do now all because the ball had been improved?

They were talking about this during the telecast of the WGC matchplay - unless you were up at 3am watching the 8-hour live telecast, you might have missed it. Basically they said that wedges were the next thing on the chopping block, as they're getting too much spin out of the rough, and would be finding ways to reduce the spin they can generate. They went on to say that it would lead to ball manufacturers making balls that would spin more, which would then lead to lower driving distances. They said it was just a backdoor way to dial back driving distances without going straight after ball manufacturers or further limiting drivers - makes sense to me.

Col

QUOTE: Colin @ Mar 2 2007, 10:43 AM

They were talking about this during the telecast of the WGC matchplay - unless you were up at 3am watching the 8-hour live telecast, you might have missed it. Basically they said that wedges were the next thing on the chopping block, as they're getting too much spin out of the rough, and would be finding ways to reduce the spin they can generate. They went on to say that it would lead to ball manufacturers making balls that would spin more, which would then lead to lower driving distances. They said it was just a backdoor way to dial back driving distances without going straight after ball manufacturers or further limiting drivers - makes sense to me.

Col

That's smart of them! Basically assuming that manufacturers will not find a way to increase COR and increase spin of the ball. Wouldn't it make better sense to do both? ie COR limit on ball as well as groove regulations?

All's i hope is it only affects profesionals because it will not make a bit of difference to the average punter.I had Ping eye 2 and had to change them when all the crap about square grooves was going on it cost me i think at the time $400 it made no difference to my game what so ever .I didn't see any difference in the way the ball would spin , so makeing rules to limit pro's is one thing but leave the average guy out of it he needs all the help he can get!!

QUOTE: Jza80 @ Mar 2 2007, 09:56 AM

That's smart of them! Basically assuming that manufacturers will not find a way to increase COR and increase spin of the ball. Wouldn't it make better sense to do both? ie COR limit on ball as well as groove regulations?

I dunno seems like spitting on a fire to me - whatever they do, the manufacturers will find a way around it.

QUOTE: Par Master @ Mar 1 2007, 03:58 PM

Which wedges have u grooves on them.

Almost all wedges currently made have U grooves. They spin more, but more importantly are supposedly cheaper to manufacture.

Effectively this would roll wedges back to around 1980 with the idea that the premium on being an accurate driver will come back, by reducing spin on out of the rough shots. In other words reduce the effectiveness of the 'bomb and gouge' style of play.

Whether you agree with the logic, the fact that they have gotten agreement from the big manufacturers is a big step forward. Hopefully it's a good sign for the future.

They'll just start making wedges that are so soft the pro's throw them away after a dozen rounds. The "just bomb it and lob wedge it out of the crud" style won't go away whilst the the boys can drive it 300m. In the end they will have to do something about the ball and it wouldn't be hard. You just announce that from 1st Jan 2010 the Overall Distance Standard for the ball is now 270yds at 130mph swing speed much the same as the announcement a couple of years ago when they changed the ODS. Give the boys a couple of years to clear stock and encourage the national bodies to start legislating the the new ball is a requirement for all amateur events from say 1st Jan 2009. For the first 4 or 5 years all the new balls get marked as ODS2010 or something so it's easy to check to ensure your opponent isn't playing a "hot ball".

For those of us that went from small ball to big ball it really wasn't that much of a hassle.

JJ

It's mostly the edges of the grooves they're going after. The constraint that there be a minimum 0.010-inch (about 0.25-mm) radius on the edge of the groove is going to have the most effect on controlling ball spin. Their proposed constraint on cross section and spacing (0.0025 square inches of cross sectional area per inch of groove spacing) will control depth and width of the grooves and spacing.

This will also control groove shape because a triangular groove of the same depth and width as a square groove has one half the cross sectional area. The groove edges aren't as 'abrupt' on a triangular groove as on a square groove. Triangular grooves with controlled radius edges are also more expensive to machine than square or u-shaped grooves. All of these controls on the grooves is going to add to the cost of a head. Probably not significantly, but it certainly won't make them cheaper.

There is also talk about using a 'Pro Tour' ball. But I don't see that flying because the OEM's all want to sell us what the pro's are using.

Sigh,

Alan Brooks