On its surface, it would seem that the decision today by PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem to not delay implementation of the new grooves Conditions of Competition is cut and dry.  Upon further inspection, though, the entire process really is intriguing.

It's not completely certain how this whole thing started.  Several months ago, Titleist ramped up a bit of a campaign against the USGA's grooves regulation and began appealing to the Tour, its players, and amateur golfers.  Around the same time, there was increased grumbling among some manufacturers in support of Titleist's claims. 

Some PGA Tour players began complaining that they did not have enough time to acquaint themselves with the new equipment.  In concert with that, manufacturers made the argument that they needed more time in order to properly fit players in accordance with the new regulations.  Hence, the Policy Board went down the path of marching to a vote to delay implementation until 2011. 

Late last week, Alex Miceli reported that a delay was almost inevitable.  With four player representatives on the Policy Board, one would wonder how that is possible.  Even voting unanimously, the players would have needed a fifth vote on the nine member Board in order to delay implementation.  Though the non-player members of the board generally do not interfere with the will of the player members, the consequences of not interfering would have been dire.

As has been pointed out by myself and Geoff Shackelford, a vote to delay would have been embarrassing for the PGA Tour, Tim Finchem, the USGA, and the players themselves.  The Tour and Finchem would have looked powerless against the will of the players, diminishing his stature.  The USGA would have looked like they have no sway whatsoever and like an organization that could easily be undermined by the PGA Tour.  The players themselves would have looked like whiners by complaining that they did not have ample time to try out the new clubs and, therefore, abandoning the transition for another year - when this debate was likely to rage again.

Commissioner Finchem clearly saw the consequences of voting to delay for everyone involved.  Rather than holding the players culpable for the decision - either way - he was able to take it out of their hands and reaffirm his support for the grooves regulation.  Simultaneously, he avoided the same fate of former PGA Tour Commissioner Deane Beman, whose meddling in equipment regulations in the 1980s gave the Tour a black eye.

The decision to delay would have been a major win for Titleist, the manufacturers, and Titleist CEO Wally Uihlein.  There is a going theory that Titleist would be most negatively impacted by the change and it would happen on two fronts.  First, it is widely thought that Titleist has not yet developed wedges with designer Bob Vokey that perform as well as they would like with the new grooves.  Second, the anticipated fallout of the grooves change suggests that players will have to change clubs and balls to respond to the new grooves.  That may deliver a serious blow to the dominance that Titleist has in the ball segment with its heralded ProV1 line. 

These theories were somewhat confirmed by the Acushnet/Titleist press release after the announcement today.

We believe, and players have confirmed, that the conversion process will not be a simple exchange of existing wedges with new grooves. The conversion process may involve different wedge designs and lofts, different shot technique, different golf balls and different set configuration (including drivers).

In a sense, the new grooves regulations almost resets the iron and ball market on the PGA Tour.  Many players may move to a softer ball that is not the ProV1.  That creates an uncertainty that is definitely less than desireable for any manufacturer.

So, where do we go from here?  Well, there could be legal action.  As Gene Yumada noted in his write up on the issue, PING threatened a lawsuit if the reversal went through.  (That's particularly interesting considering John Solheim's release lashing out against grooves.) 

Whether or not the manufacturers now try acting against the USGA directly is not known.  They have not applied this approach to date and litigation may well not be resolved until after January 1, 2010.  It would be a lost cause at that point.

The future of the issue may be unknown, but Tim Finchem definitely answered the question of John Huggan posed this past weekend.  We may not know who runs golf, but we now do know who doesn't.