Well if you talk about scramblig percentage, the statistics back you up. So far in the 2011 PGA Tour season, the scrambling average is 57.46%. In 2009, the last year the pros played aggressive-grooves, scrambling was virtually the same at 57.52%. So with short shots, the statistics show the difference is not so great.
But the statistics do not talk about who benefits and who does not. The is no doubt that longer shots from poor lies or even shorter shots wet grass is a different story. Even on short grass the new grooves change the ball flight - it launches higher. So you are going to see a resurgance of blades as opposed to cavity backs.
So even though the rules apply equally to all, they favor some players over others. The new grooves favor driving accuracy (not Woods) and players that have the finesse to better control launches (not Woods). These players tend not to be brutes (Like Woods), who can use a larger sweet spot and sharper grooves to rip shots from anywhere with spin and accuracy.
I don't like golf being a game where brutes get the rewards. I prefer to reward finesse and intelligence.
Completely agree. "Bomb and gouge," the term used to describe the act of hitting it long with the driver, and "gouging" it from whatever rough or hazard onto the green, was indeed made popular during Tiger's reign. Probably since my drives are nowhere as long as I'd like them to be, do I agree with the finesse approach.
I will give Tiger credit though--he when he was able to play bomb and gouge, his short game was phenomenal, and he was clutch at putting.