V-grooves for Victory

Rumor has it that the USGA and the R&A will consider changing permissible groove specifications. Such a modification will have immediate knock-on effects on ball technology primarily. Since limitations on equipment have the most tangible effects on the professional and elite level amateur game, then any new golf ball, like many equipment innovations, would have to pass muster with the best players. Tour players receive big endorsement deals, for name and brand recognition translate into profit typically. Since the mass market provides the revenue and profit bases, manufacturers must build a brand and do so through the snob effect. Even casual players prefer to play at least the name brand of the world's best players. The public does not have to play the same exact ball as tour or club professionals, but brand recognition is vital to financial gain. Even if a manufacturer designs a ball well-suited to the average player, it might not sell if Tour players shun the professional's counterpart. Titleist has a huge share of the ball market though its NXT or DT ball may not be as good as a competitor's product for the average player. So, how could changing the rules on grooves end golf's live ball era, fundamentally an integral aspect to the game's expansion?

 

Deep, square grooves have more surface area. Hence, at impact, extra friction causes the ball to spin more. If a golf ball is struck properly - compressed, - the grooves shear the outer cover. A hard-edged metal surface traveling at high speed over a short interval will do that to a rubber. On its website, the USGA states, "The USGA continually tests golf equipment at its Research and Test Center in Far Hills, N.J., for conformity to the Rules. Without such rigorous equipment testing and research programs, advances in technology could soon overtake skill as the major factor in success." If it deemed that square grooves violate this principle, and irons would have to have V-grooves, ball manufacturers will scramble to adjust their product line. Since V-grooves will have less surface area and consequently generate less spin, harder-covered golf balls, which travel further and spin less, will fall out of favor. 

 

Either changing groove requirements or changing ball specifications have the ultimate desired effect of limiting ball flight. The difference lies in the sequence of who will have to convert first. If the ball must become softer, club makers will change to V-grooves so good players can control ball flight more consistently without tearing the cover. Conversely, if V-grooves go into effect, then hard covered balls will not allow players to control distance reliably. The decision to restrict grooves rather than directly limiting the ball ought to be a market based one. Whichever way causes less shock to the market and adversely impacts manufacturers and players of all stripes least, then that is the correct remedy. 

 

However, golf as a game, a sport, and an industry are at crossroads, and none of these entities are exclusive of the other two. For the game with deep traditional roots, staunching the march of science is imperative. As a sport with myriad ways of producing good scores, favoring one type of player nullifies the nuances which make it appealing in the first place. As an industry staking much to compete in a crowded marketplace, it has its own precession problem regarding growth. Is it better to attract many new consumers with the show of strength first and then convert them to the virtues of skill? Is it better to place be honest and stress that the point of the game is to get the ball in the hole? Through any limitation of ball flight, interest will wane as the spectacle of the power game recedes. Yet, by not addressing the distance issue, the stewards of the game risk alienating purists and traditionalists. Unfortunately, the solution is not determined entirely on the margin. 

 

It is not as simple as whether it is more profitable to keep appealing to core customers or to market to new ones. The growth of the game depends as much on access as it does on clever marketing gimmicks or a superstar. The USGA has the dual mission of maintaining competitiveness and being 'for the good of the game.' To fulfill the latter obligation, it shirks the former. That would be only for the good of the industry. Eight years after Titleist first released the Pro-V1, enough statistical data and anecdotal evidence about the power game merit a rethink on equipment. Vi et arte, strength and skill in Latin, is the motto of the Royal Dornoch Golf Club as well as other clubs in Britain and Ireland. Significant, for in tandem, they comprise the keys to having a good game.