Tested: New Grooves vs. Old Grooves

[GolfSpy_X]

The Test

Five skilled amateurs with scratch handicaps were given brand new wedges with 56° of loft with "2010 condition of competition" grooves (referred to as "2010 C-C") and "pre-2010" grooves. (Recreational players can use pre-2010 grooves until 2024, but manufacturers must stop producing the clubs by the end of this year.)

 

The test was conducted in San Francisco on a 58° day. Hitting only Titleist ProV1 golf balls, testers hit full shots to a practice green from the fairway and from two-inch rough.

 

Testers struck five shots in each of the four scenarios:

1) "2010 C-C" wedge from the fairway

2) "Pre-2010" wedge from the fairway

3) "2010 C-C" wedge from two-inch rough

4) "Pre-2010" wedge from two-inch rough

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.golf.com/golf/equipment/article/0,28136,1998498,00.html#ixzz0rcByLyGV

[Moecat]

The difference in roll when the ball is struck from the rough is a bit of an eye opener. Moral of the story: keep it in the fairway!

[JBones]

I've been wanting to try this myself. I have a ridiculous spin rate, so I think the 2010 C-C could actually help my game. Just out of curiosity, are the Scratch wedges that we will be reviewing 2010 C-C?

[JohnBarry]

Huge difference from the rough, wow, and I live there too!

[pfingst]

Huge difference from the rough, wow, and I live there too!

The real question is: how is it out of the trees? I need to know these things!

[pfingst]

As a serious follow up, I wonder if the average player (like, oh I don't know, me) would notice much difference, or if we just don't have the consistency for it to matter.

[GolfSpy_X]

From our testing and from the graphic you see you WILL see a difference from the rough. Even if you an average player the results will be similar.

 

Here is the reason...the better golfer sees different spin rates then the average golfer but the average golfer still has a typical sin rate from his wedges and with the new grooves this will be no different it will effect both golfers. You might not see the 2,500 rpm difference but even a 1,500 rpm difference will result in more roll on the green which will mean you will see a difference.

 

As a serious follow up, I wonder if the average player (like, oh I don't know, me) would notice much difference, or if we just don't have the consistency for it to matter.

[MmmmmmBuddy]

I was unaware that my new irons have conforming grooves, and was surprised how much higher they seemed to fly versus my older sticks. I'm not complaining, just an observation. As far as performance from the rough.... I have to hit it there first...

[GolfSpy Dave]

I was unaware that my new irons have conforming grooves, and was surprised how much higher they seemed to fly versus my older sticks. I'm not complaining, just an observation. As far as performance from the rough.... I have to hit it there first...

Nic are you not hitting the rough because you are not playing at all or are you playing well

[MmmmmmBuddy]

Nic are you not hitting the rough because you are not playing at all or are you playing well

I just drive it better and better each week. I really can't remember the last time I missed consecutive fairways. (it might have something to do with the fact that I can't remember when I last played either....)

[Smilesy]

I remember reading somewhere last year that decreasing the spin from the rough was pretty much the sole reason for changing the groves, they don't care how much you can spin it from the fairway. Looks like they succeeded it that.

[Phana24JG]

From our testing and from the graphic you see you WILL see a difference from the rough. Even if you an average player the results will be similar.

 

Here is the reason...the better golfer sees different spin rates then the average golfer but the average golfer still has a typical sin rate from his wedges and with the new grooves this will be no different it will effect both golfers. You might not see the 2,500 rpm difference but even a 1,500 rpm difference will result in more roll on the green which will mean you will see a difference.

 

Sorry I missed this topic before. The one area I found a big difference was chips and short pitches from greenside rough. Assuming a reasonably playable lie, I could usually get the 58* standard or cut shot if needed to settle without too much roll. Now, the first bounce is noticeably hotter, more inconsistent, and the margin for error is very reduced.

[Specs]

Those #'s are crazy! And I never switched my 54 degree to a non-conforming wedge. Still play a 10 plus year old 588. The reason I was playing this was too much spin from the fairway with the other wedges I tried. Now, I understand why my wedge play out of the rough has been so inconsitent. I tried blaming the ball and went softer even though it hurt my driver distance...

[Nasty Canasta]

They are bound a determined to make me hit in the fairway consistently.

 

 

Those #'s are crazy!

 

Those are some crazy numbers indeed. Especially the backspin and the roll.

[OlStick]

The Test

Five skilled amateurs with scratch handicaps were given brand new wedges with 56° of loft with "2010 condition of competition" grooves (referred to as "2010 C-C") and "pre-2010" grooves. (Recreational players can use pre-2010 grooves until 2024, but manufacturers must stop producing the clubs by the end of this year.)

 

The test was conducted in San Francisco on a 58° day. Hitting only Titleist ProV1 golf balls, testers hit full shots to a practice green from the fairway and from two-inch rough.

 

Testers struck five shots in each of the four scenarios:

1) "2010 C-C" wedge from the fairway

2) "Pre-2010" wedge from the fairway

3) "2010 C-C" wedge from two-inch rough

4) "Pre-2010" wedge from two-inch rough

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.golf.com/golf/equipment/article/0,28136,1998498,00.html#ixzz0rcByLyGV

Thank you, USGA, PGA, R&A, and whoever I left out. NOW, let's see if shotmakers get a break against the bombers. It hasn't mattered how many fairways players missed, because a wedge from the rough beat a 7-iron from the fairway. I am glad to see that the game may make more sense with this ruling. Hooray for the guy who hits more fairways as an inherent part of hitting more greens.

 

One question: I have been told many times in many Golf, Golf Digest, etc. articles that spin plays a major part in launch. It appears from these stats that that isn't so.

[cheymike]

It looks to me like it is OS... 1* from the fairway isn't much to even consider... but 5* difference from the rough 29 vs 34) is a lot of launch angle difference from a wedge.

[NRJyzr]

One wonders if the higher launch of new groove wedges might be related to a CG change, to counter the expected lower spin of the new grooves?

[JMiller]

I wanted to dig this up from the grave and make a couple comments about it more as a reflection 2 seasons past the fact of the rule change. I want to note that top amateurs (US Am, US Pub Links, Us Mid Am, US Women's AM, etc.) still don't have to use the C.o.C. grooves until the 2014 season.

 

I have been playing the new grooves since 2010 and I must say the spin reduction that I saw at first was around 20% less spin from the fairways and about 40% from the rough, before I had to use a shaft that was low spinning in the wedges just to control the amount of spin i got on 'pre-2010' grooves.

 

Fairway I like the slight reduction in spin it is much more predictable IMHO, you can still one hope and stop a ball but instead of it spinning to a dead stop or even 1 to 3 feet back on the shot, it will now dead stop or release 1 to 3 feet, lets you land it a little shorter and know that if it stops you are bellow the hole, if it releases a little you are probably still bellow the hole just a little closer rather then further away.

 

Out of the rough is the trickiest thing, you never know when you might catch a flyer or when it will come out of the rough like it was on the fairway, the lie is a lot harder to predict, either way you have to expect it to have way more release then the 'pre-2010' grooves. Landing the ball short even with a 60* wedge and waiting for it to release and roll out.

 

Stats on PGA Tour, I think the best players in the world adjust really well, must of them had the C.o.C. grooves in the bag at the end of 2009 anyways so not sure how accurate this is. One thing I wanted to note is the increase of Driving accuracy and slight decrease in driving distance. That is probably due to the super soft cover balls some of the pros have put into play to get more spin with the C.o.C. grooves. As I said before I find it a little easier to control a running shot rather then a spinning one, as the stats show bellow the Tour pros are getting closer on the new grooves I would have to assume from not over spinning them.

2009 2010

Scambling 57.64% 57.72%

Proximity to hole from 10-20yds 6'9" 6'8"

Proximity to hole from 20-30yds 9'6" 9'3"

Approches from 50-75yds 16'3" 15'8"

Approaches from rough 50-75yds 22'2" 21'6"

Driving Distance 279.5 278.6

Driving Accuracy 61.77% 61.87%

 

I am wondering what are the impressions now that we are 2 years away from the top AMs having to put the clubs in play, I personally have welcomed the change but I was playing C.o.C. irons from 2009 on, I had the Titleist AP2 (2008) model before the irons i bag now and those were conforming V grooves anyways.

 

Do you think this rule is silly or do you agree with it now in 2012? They can reverse it for AMs before 2014 in Competition and 2024 for the rest of the public, but I really don' see that happening.

[RoverRick]

I think this was a great rule. They have really gotten those driving distances back under control. The pros are 32.5 inches shorter than they were, thus restoring the great venues to there lofty perches.

 

I think it was stupid then and think it has proven that a bad idea does not get better with time. I do not think that this rule accomplished what they were wanting to do. But it did drive up sales of wedges and new irons. I am playing the old grooves so I can not say how they altered my game.

[Phana24JG]

I think this was a great rule. They have really gotten those driving distances back under control. The pros are 32.5 inches shorter than they were, thus restoring the great venues to there lofty perches.

 

I think it was stupid then and think it has proven that a bad idea does not get better with time. I do not think that this rule accomplished what they were wanting to do. But it did drive up sales of wedges and new irons. I am playing the old grooves so I can not say how they altered my game.

 

Yeah, property taxes, water bills, and a changing demographic, combined with painfully slow play and a difficult economic environment are killing American golf and the USGA is busy screwing around with wedge grooves that most of us might notice once or twice a round. Thanks guys.

[JMiller]

I think this was a great rule. They have really gotten those driving distances back under control. The pros are 32.5 inches shorter than they were, thus restoring the great venues to there lofty perches.

 

I think it was stupid then and think it has proven that a bad idea does not get better with time. I do not think that this rule accomplished what they were wanting to do. But it did drive up sales of wedges and new irons. I am playing the old grooves so I can not say how they altered my game.

 

I guess this rule really hasn't effected a lot of 'average golfers' because the 'average golfer' does 3 main things typically that will not effect spin much regardless of the 'pre-2010' grooves or the new 'C.o.C.' grooves that are now mandatory for manufactures to produce.

1) The ball that is being played.

--> 'Distance' & 'Straight' balls are not designed to spin, they are designed to reduce spin. Premium 'tour' balls are designed to spin need a good ball to spin it.

 

2) Techniques in full swing / short game.

--> 'Scooping' or 'helping it up' without forward shaft lean and catching ball first then dirt will generate a ton less spin on the ball.

 

3) Clean grooves free of dirt.

--> Look in the bag of a tour player, watch their caddie after each shot, the caddie will clean the grooves out with a tee and wipe off the face with a wet towel.

--> If dirt is in the grooves the grooves are useless regardless of 'pre-2010' or 'C.o.C.' you just won't get maximum spin from it with mud / dirt in the grooves.

 

 

 

Mizuno been using C.o.C. in their MP clubs dating back to MP-30. Titleist also has a lot of models that confirm dating back a good ways. The rule change really didn't effect some tour players in their irons because know it or not they were confirming for a long time now. So really the rule only effected wedges and clubs that had 25* or more loft that were 'pre-2010' grooves. I think this was mostly GI clubs and some models of players clubs back in 2006 - 2010.

 

That is the simplest way to explain the 'Driving accuracy' and 'Driving distance' not changing much other then maybe a couple ball changes in covers to play slightly softer, the grooves in irons really didn't change. The only time that it becomes a premium to hit the fairway is from 100 yards and in short par 4s layup on par 5s. Then you want to be in a fairway so you can predict the spin easier on little shots from the rough you just got to know it is going to release and play short.

 

The only thing this rule has done really is make the short game that much more tricky for the average player, for the master it became easier as it is simpler to control a ball rolling then control what you might think the ball is going to do in terms of 'bite'

 

Here is the link to search the USGA club list to see what models and companies are C.o.C. for irons and wedges that were produced in 2010 or before.

http://www.usga.org/InfoClubsDB/intro.html

[RoverRick]

The problem I had with this rule was the logic, or lack there of, behind it. The statement I heard was that in an effort to limit the pros and to place a premium on accuracy over distance they were going to make change the grooves on wedges and irons so that the ball would not stop as fast. This would be like NASCAR saying instead of putting a restrictor plate on the car in some races, they are going to limit the brake size so that the drivers would have to let off of the gas sooner.

 

You are right that it does not affect most golfers. It does not matter how much spin is on the ball when it passes the flag at head high altitude and does not even touch the green. But the way to really do what they wanted was by adjusting the course, rough length and green speed, not groove size on wedges.

[JMiller]

You are right that it does not affect most golfers. It does not matter how much spin is on the ball when it passes the flag at head high altitude and does not even touch the green. But the way to really do what they wanted was by adjusting the course, rough length and green speed, not groove size on wedges.

 

From a course maintenance stand point and operating budget that is just too expensive for a course unless you are Augusta.

 

Changing the course is not the answer and I think the USGA and R&A realized that. In the early 1900s i would have to guess tat tour courses were around 6600-6800 (today's men front tees in a lot of places). Tour length courses are now 6900-7600 with the average being around 7200. Obviously it was an equipment issue not a course set up issue.

 

I would have to put the pin point on technology personally not length, so the groove rule made since to me as it has lower impact on average golfers then making 8000 yard courses.

[RoverRick]

From a course maintenance stand point and operating budget that is just too expensive for a course unless you are Augusta.

 

Changing the course is not the answer and I think the USGA and R&A realized that. In the early 1900s i would have to guess tat tour courses were around 6600-6800 (today's men front tees in a lot of places). Tour length courses are now 6900-7600 with the average being around 7200. Obviously it was an equipment issue not a course set up issue.

 

I would have to put the pin point on technology personally not length, so the groove rule made since to me as it has lower impact on average golfers then making 8000 yard courses.

 

That is the point, how can a rule make sense when it is a solution, albeit the wrong one, in my opinion, without a problem. Why do they think there is a problem when the pros are shooting below par? The course record at Pebble Beach is the same it has been since 1983 by Tom Kite, Nick Price set the course record in 1986 at Augusta laying up on the par 5's, both of these were done with wooden drivers.

 

The biggest deal on the tour is that the Pros used to be club pros. Guys who spent a good part of their time in the bars back at their clubs but were good enough to go on tour. Now they start at a very young age and have swing coaches, and mental coaches, and fitness trainers, and probably spend more time working out than drinking. This alone accounts for the increase in driving distances. The advances in equipment certainly benefit me more than it does them. Look at their irons. Most of them play irons that are not much different than what was availible 30 years ago. The drivers are much different. But does it make as much difference to them than it does the weekend hack, No. Most would still hit a wooden driver with a steel shaft, 280 yards.

 

So their was a debate in my opinion of if there was anything to bedating in the first place. And then to change the rules on wedges to increase driving accuracy is stupid. All you have to do is make sure you do not leave yourself short sided.

[JMiller]

I spent a little time before writing this post in doing a little digging. I was a little off base on why the USGa / R&A changed the grooves or started looking it it internally as I think a lot of people have been because the piss poor explanation originally when this happened 4 years ago when it was first announced.

 

USGA / R&A did not base this groove rule change on driving distance versus driving accuracy. They based it on driving accuracy vs money won / skill rank that is two different things totally. Yes their research proves that the importance of driving accuracy in comparison to winning money on tour sank to an ultimate low near 2006.

 

looking at the PDFs on grooves (there are three of them), they showed that a 5iron was getting more spin from light rough then it was from the fairway for 'pre-2010' U grooves. That is nuts it was better to hit your ball into the light rough so you could get more spin on it for 5-8 irons, I think that is a problem personally when hitting a fairway is a penalty in terms of spin rate over light rough.

 

USGA Research Studies (look at the three PDFs on Groove studies) --> http://www.usga.org/Content.aspx?id=24246

Myths about golf equipment and performance (I like the one about swing speed at the bottom) --> http://www.usga.org/Content.aspx?id=24246

[Phana24JG]

I guess this rule really hasn't effected a lot of 'average golfers' because the 'average golfer' does 3 main things typically that will not effect spin much regardless of the 'pre-2010' grooves or the new 'C.o.C.' grooves that are now mandatory for manufactures to produce.

1) The ball that is being played.

--> 'Distance' & 'Straight' balls are not designed to spin, they are designed to reduce spin. Premium 'tour' balls are designed to spin need a good ball to spin it.

 

2) Techniques in full swing / short game.

--> 'Scooping' or 'helping it up' without forward shaft lean and catching ball first then dirt will generate a ton less spin on the ball.

 

3) Clean grooves free of dirt.

--> Look in the bag of a tour player, watch their caddie after each shot, the caddie will clean the grooves out with a tee and wipe off the face with a wet towel.

--> If dirt is in the grooves the grooves are useless regardless of 'pre-2010' or 'C.o.C.' you just won't get maximum spin from it with mud / dirt in the grooves.

 

JM, I agree with you except for some minor disputes on point 2. While scooping and/or flipping is a disaster, what I have seen with less than scratch golfers is a tendency to overdo forward lean by placing the ball back too far in the stance, and failing to properly release the club. If you knock the effective loft of the PW or GW 10-15* and "bounce it off the dirt", you reduce the backspin.

 

However, I think #3 is worth repeating. A damp towel is essential (borrow a few ices cubes from the beverage babes) and make sure you have an effective groove cleaner

[JMiller]

LOL, yes hitting a shot fat doesn't do well for spin either.

 

Honestly, releasing the head in a pitch gives more run leaving it open gives more spin, either way you are manipulating the face catching the ball first then changing spin based on techniques.