"Older" irons that conform to 2010 C-C groove rule still in play?

[Mitchell]

Since just put a set (3-pw) of 762b irons in the bag and still own a set of 962b (2-pw), I thought of the following question -

Which GolfWRX members still play irons manufactured prior to implementation of 2010 C-C groove rule that conform to this rule and what are the irons?

[kwooten31]

First gen Titleist AP2 and Mizuno MP30 are pre 2010 and are conforming. I picked up the Titleist in a trade on the bst and the Mizuno's at a retailer. I was worried they wouldn't be conforming but after a little research found out both are good to go. It really doesn't matter to me cause I don't play in any tourneys that require the cc grooves, but for whatever reason I'm happy they conform.

[1970.gpp]

I've got a set of EYE2s built in 1984 that conform to the groove rule. I don't play them much, but it's good to know that they conform.

[Mitchell]

[quote name='kwooten31' timestamp='1390553916' post='8522133']
First gen Titleist AP2 and Mizuno MP30 are pre 2010 and are conforming. I picked up the Titleist in a trade on the bst and the Mizuno's at a retailer. I was worried they wouldn't be conforming but after a little research found out both are good to go. It really doesn't matter to me cause I don't play in any tourneys that require the cc grooves, but for whatever reason I'm happy they conform.
[/quote]Knew would probably hear from you about MP30, since I asked about those in another thread and we picked up our sets around same timeframe, how do you like yours? Really like the set I got, just the triple grind sole on both of my Titleist sets works so well for me that doubt MP30 will make starting lineup.

[Micah J]

[attachment=2035033:1390557993198.jpg]Only my lob wedge.....check it out..deep, wide, sharp square grooves. Old school.

[Franks113]

So I went on USGA.org and searched their club database for my Nike VR split cavities and found them listed as "ATR". ATR means Additional Testing Required. So I read on to find out what that actually means as far as playing the irons in competition. Having your clubs listed ATR basically means that you can play the clubs but if the USGA checks your clubs to see if they are conforming you are at their mercy. It will be up to them to decided if they are legal or not. Why would the USGA even make this gray area for conforming clubs? Either make them conforming or not.

[kwooten31]

[quote name='nochrome' timestamp='1390557262' post='8522177']
[quote name='kwooten31' timestamp='1390553916' post='8522133']
First gen Titleist AP2 and Mizuno MP30 are pre 2010 and are conforming. I picked up the Titleist in a trade on the bst and the Mizuno's at a retailer. I was worried they wouldn't be conforming but after a little research found out both are good to go. It really doesn't matter to me cause I don't play in any tourneys that require the cc grooves, but for whatever reason I'm happy they conform.
[/quote]Knew would probably hear from you about MP30, since I asked about those in another thread and we picked up our sets around same timeframe, how do you like yours? Really like the set I got, just the triple grind sole on both of my Titleist sets works so well for me that doubt MP30 will make starting lineup.
[/quote]

Yeah I'm really digging them too, but between the AP2 and CB3 I'm having a tough time deciding. At the moment its the AP2, but who knows what I will be playing next week. Yeah but I will have a winner before the season really gets underway. I'm glad yours are going good too...

[bladehunter]

have a backup set titleist 990 myself which are on the list as conforming....Although my beloved 94 titleist tour models are not even listed....They have v grooves so im guessing they would be legal but am sort of puzzled as to why they haven't been checked. I realize they are old, but not much older than the 962 or 990 and certainly not much more than the 681 which I see is ATR.. But yet the 690.mb is legal (which I just traded and Im ashamed to say for what) titleist claims they all have same grooves so what gives??

[dcr147]

[quote name='Franks113' timestamp='1390564078' post='8522299']
So I went on USGA.org and searched their club database for my Nike VR split cavities and found them listed as "ATR". ATR means Additional Testing Required. So I read on to find out what that actually means as far as playing the irons in competition. Having your clubs listed ATR basically means that you can play the clubs but if the USGA checks your clubs to see if they are conforming you are at their mercy. It will be up to them to decided if they are legal or not. Why would the USGA even make this gray area for conforming clubs? Either make them conforming or not.
[/quote]My thought is time and money..It would be a very daunting task to test every single iron and wedge type out in the market. Most of the clubs in question are the ones that either have been used in major competitions or "would most likely appear in a top competitors bag".
I have recently responded to a lot of posts concerning Ping Eye 2 irons and wedges..I grew up using them in competition and have won with them on amateur and professional level events. I prefer the Eye 2+ which is no longer conforming for the events that I play in. I am using an XG Lob wedge that is legal but I have contacted John Solheim and there is no plan to offer the Eye 2 set design with the XG grooves so my choice is to play older, forged heads that do pass the USGA's rules.

[richard t]

Old Eye2 man as well. Don't play USGA/Pro events so... Can you imagine the sales of Eye2XG irons.
Then again, Mr. Solheim knows way more than me.

[bph7]

[quote name='Franks113' timestamp='1390564078' post='8522299']
So I went on USGA.org and searched their club database for my Nike VR split cavities and found them listed as "ATR". ATR means Additional Testing Required. So I read on to find out what that actually means as far as playing the irons in competition. Having your clubs listed ATR basically means that you can play the clubs but if the USGA checks your clubs to see if they are conforming you are at their mercy. It will be up to them to decided if they are legal or not. [b]Why would the USGA even make this gray area for conforming clubs?[/b] Either make them conforming or not.
[/quote]

Uhh, why wouldn't they? They messed up everything else about the rule change process, so why not more? The entire groove rule change was a debacle from the start and continues to be one. What reason do we have to think that they would get ANY part of it right? When an organization with unilateral power decides to implement a solution in search of a problem, this is what happens. Basically, they never thought it through, and then realized that testing every club that has ever come out would not be feasible, so they gave up.