"I can't believe the R&A and USGA can't get together with the manufacturers and come up with something that is for the betterment and protection of the game."

So much great stuff in John Huggan's profile of Tom Weiskopf, and I'm quite sure where to begin (though it's worth reading for all of the stuff beyond distance rants):

"The problem stems from the fact that the USGA lost a lawsuit with Ping over the grooves on clubs all those years ago. Now the authorities are scared to get involved in another. But they are smart people. I don't see why they can't come up with a 'tournament specification' for the ball. That wouldn't mean that the amateur couldn't play or buy that ball. It would be just like it was over here when you guys had to change from the small ball to the big ball. Or they could roll the ball back over a period of time until they reach a predetermined point.

"The saddest thing is that the ball has taken so many wonderful courses out of play for the professionals. Look at what is being done here at the Old Course, with all these tees that are not even on the premises. I don't know what the solution is, but I can't believe the R&A and USGA can't get together with the manufacturers and come up with something that is for the betterment and protection of the game and those who play it at the highest level. Maybe they should have stopped the ball as soon as it became clear that they were going to have to mess with the Old Course.

"It has a little bit to do with the ball."

In Doug Ferguson's account of Tiger's switch to a slightly harder cover in preparation for the Open Championship, it is suggested that his improved driving distance is a combination of ball and improved mechanics.

"The more I keep playing, the better I get," Woods said Saturday after recovering from an atrocious start to shoot even-par 70, making up little ground in the AT&T National. "It has a little bit to do with the ball."

Woods still uses a One Tour, this ball marked with a star symbol between the two words. He started using it this week at Aronimink, most likely as part of his preparations for the British Open in two weeks at St. Andrews, where the wind is often a major factor.

The world's No. 1 player often has talked about how he uses one of the softest golf balls on tour, which gives him greater control around the greens. This version would be helpful in windy conditions because it spins less.

This is the real eye-opener:

Once among the longest hitters in golf, Woods was 21st in driving distance last year. Going into the AT&T National, he was ranked 78th based on two measured drives per round. Through two rounds on a fast, firm Aronimink course, Woods was leading the tournament in driving distance at just over 328 yards.

His additional length was most evident during the second round, when he was playing with Dustin Johnson. On consecutive holes, Woods hit one drive 26 yards past Johnson, and another 10 yards past him. Both led to birdies.

So, we've heard all of these years that the ball is not the real reason for distance gains over the last decade. And we've been told that rolling back the Overall Distance Standard via new ball rules would be complicated and in general, not feasible. Yet here we have Tiger switching balls (and perhaps improving his swing), but we are seeing a serious difference in his driving distance with a simple switch.

Why can't we contemplate a future with a ball that has the characteristics of the pellet Tiger's been using?  A little spinnier, but sharing many of the components that make the modern ball last longer?

"That's how it started."

Thanks to reader Andrew for the new Met Golfer roundtable on rules. It seems Arnold Palmer is now getting official credit for the groove rule change.

Dick, can you take us through the process of how the 2010 condition of competition on grooves came about:

Rugge: It started with Arnold Palmer, who came here to the USGA offices in January 2001 for a meeting to talk about a lot of things regarding equipment.  He sat next to me, and near the end of our meeting, he stuck his finger in my face and kind of scolded me and said, "The biggest mistake the USGA ever made was to allow square grooves in the game."  That's how it started.

As reader Andrew noted, "I wonder what would have happened had Palmer said the biggest mistake they made was letting the ball go so far."

"It was no accident that last weekend's Masters leader board was almost exclusively filled by players either exceptionally thoughtful or prodigiously talented or both."

Besides a nice rant about the modern ball (I always enjoy those), John Huggan makes a couple of worthwhile points when considering the play of Europeans at this year's Masters.

In defense of the current band of better-than-average European players, coming up well short (so far at least) isn't all their own faults. Tiger and Phil Mickelson apart, standing out from the pack isn't easy these days. Look at both the PGA and European Tours. So far this year, only South Africans Charl Schwartzel and Ernie Els have won more than once on either. Parity is king. Of course, much of that all-too prevalent stalemate has been caused by the high level of quality control involved in the manufacture of today's clubs and balls. For one thing, bigheaded metal drivers have made mastering what should be the hardest club in the bag almost routine for virtually every professional. So separating oneself from the rest is more difficult. The deserved edge previously enjoyed by the likes of Greg Norman and Nick Price -- the best drivers of their generation -- has been diminished greatly.

And this about Augusta National's design and setup:

When those relatively unimaginative players -- their senses dulled by all of the above -- pitch up at a major championship venue like Augusta National (where short grass still prevails and many holes can be played in a variety of ways) they are suddenly faced with a test paper that is, to paraphrase the great Bobby Jones, "unfamiliar." It was no accident that last weekend's Masters leader board was almost exclusively filled by players either exceptionally thoughtful or prodigiously talented or both.

"We'd be foolish not to consider it, although it is extremely controversial."

E. Michael Johnson raises all sorts of interesting questions in considering whether manufacturers should offer non-conforming lines of equipment. 

"We've looked extensively at possibilities in the nonconforming category," said Nate Radcliffe, metalwoods development manager for Cleveland Golf. "We'd be foolish not to consider it, although it is extremely controversial."

It's a category?

Now, 10 years later, might Callaway revisit nonconforming clubs? "Some think we may be likely to go down that path," said Dr. Alan Hocknell, Callaway's senior VP of research & development, "but one thing we hold highly at this company is authenticity. Playing by the rules is perhaps the most authentic part of golf. I'd say we're more likely to stay inside the rules than go outside them."

Which isn't to say Callaway hasn't looked at the landscape. Hocknell said the company has done consumer research and found golfers split on the topic. Then there's the business aspect. Any company entering the nonconforming arena is likely to be branded by its competition as making clubs for cheaters. "To have our brand positioned that way would be a huge risk," said Hocknell.

Two questions. Do you think this is a good idea for the game and would it be wise for manufacturers to go down this path?

It doesn't bother me much since the game is bifurcated with the groove rule change and if nothing else, just think, we wouldn't have to listen to the manufacturers whine about the big, bad USGA impacting quarterly profit margins!

"The reaction was stronger than it could have been, had we more intensely last year got in front of players with the details of this rule."

Tim Finchem (click to enlarge)Fighting off of a profusely bleeding paper cut, Tim Finchem joined us in the Northern Trust Open press center at 10:30 with a Mickelson presser set for 11, so naturally he kept that in mind with his opening remarks.

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM:  Thank you, Laura.  Good morning, everyone.  Laura tells me we're on a hard stop here at 11:00, so I'm going to make some brief remarks and see if I can answer your questions.

18 minutes and the entire history of groove squabbles in golf later...

 During these first four weeks, we have had five players  we've had 218 different players play those four tournaments.  Of those 218 players, five different players have actually used a Ping Eye 2 manufactured before 1990; not a huge amount of usage, but a number that was sufficient to create a fair amount of interest, particularly when one of the best players in the world in the short game area chose to use it, which he was fully entitled to do.

And that focus on the rule has led to a couple of things.  One is that there was some unfortunate commentary by other players in the media in the last week or so, and let me just pause there and restate, as I issued my statement last week, these are the rules of golf.  Any player is entitled under these rules to play a Ping Eye 2 wedge designed before 1990 if he so chooses.  There is nothing wrong with that.  There is nothing that violates the rule.  There is no hidden direction to players or side direction not to play that club, so there is absolutely no basis to criticize a player for doing so.  None.  And to do so in our view is inappropriate.

No grey area there. Makes me wonder if McCarron faced a possible suspension?

With respect to a particular player that used a particularly unfortunate choice of words, I would say that there is perhaps a mitigating factor to the amount of reaction.  There is no justification for certain language being used, but the reaction was stronger than it could have been, had we more intensely last year got in front of players with the details of this rule.

Now, what do I mean by that?

We screwed up?

Well, two years ago when we instituted our drug policy, we made sure that we were in front of every single player in dialogue on the ramifications of drug testing, on the reality that you could be suspended if you violated the drug testing rules, and the dos and don'ts of staying in compliance.  Players paid attention.  They came out and performed, and we haven't had drug issues on this TOUR.  That's not to say we haven't had a violation; that's been reported.  But we haven't had issues.

We didn't act with that level of intensity.  In my view, had we, the reaction to the use of these clubs might have been lesser.  But that is what it is, and I think we're about to close the chapter on that part of the history of this.

Well there you have it, an admission of error, Finchem style.

In this particular case, the most striking thing about the difference between the groove discussion in 1989 and '90, which was based on some tests and led to a lack of confidence on the part of the PGA TOUR or the USGA that you could win a lawsuit, in this case there have been years and years of very careful measurement of data, of the lack of correlation of hitting the ball in the fairway and performing well on the PGA TOUR, so it's a very strong case, and I think that's one of the reasons you didn't see a lawsuit amongst manufacturers here, because there is a strong case.

But the byproduct  I know I've read some people say this is a backdoor attempt to create softer balls.  I'm not aware of anybody that believes that. 

Uh Tim, that's Dick Rugge, USGA for starters.

But I do think that with this rule we really could relax a little bit about the need to fool around with the ball and the driver for an extended period of time.  That's my only view. 

Well good to know that after five weeks you were able to draw a conclusion from the data.