[C. Squier]

Who made Phil the PGA Tour's babysitter?  Surely he didn't ask for that title. 

Kudos to him for taking a stand.  Also helps his Callaway contract allows him to play non-Cally clubs.  If the other saps on tour want to even the playing field, they should break their own contracts and head over to eBay.  Otherwise, stop barking up Phil's tree.  It's the Tour they need to harp on.

[Rick Shefchik]

Rick Shefchik:

I don't appreciate your reply from my line starting with B.S.

that said:
Does Phil play with conforming clubs ? yes
Is he cheating ? No
Should he be playing those clubs ? Debatable
Is he responsible of the situation ? No, the governing bodies are

it is what it is ?

Philippe,
I didn't appreciate you assuming what my reaction would have been had Tiger chosen to play the Ping wedge.

Beyond that, I think we're on the same page: debatable. I've been debating.

[Ron Csigo]

Has there been any comment from the PGA Tour or Tim Finchem's office since Phil has been wrongfully implicated?

[Tim Gavrich]

Has there been any comment from the PGA Tour or Tim Finchem's office since Phil has been wrongfully implicated?

The Tour, jointly with the USGA I believe, issued a statement condemning accusations of "cheating" vis-a-vis the old PING wedges.

I don't see Phil as being in the wrong here; the loophole makes the rule flimsy.  It is worth noting that the number of wedges out there that fall into this loophole has got to be fairly small and it is only possible for it to get smaller as the year goes on.  I've got to believe that Phil wears out wedges pretty quickly and that the PING one will gradually lose its advantage over the newer ones.  In that case, I would like to know what the rules say about re-grooving these old PING wedges as opposed to the new, curtailed ones.

--Tim

[Chuck Brown]

I'm surprised the so many of the bright cognoscenti at GCA have gotten sucked in on what might be one of the great canards in this debate -- that Phil Mickelson is using an old Ping Eye 2 L wedge because it is providing him with superior performance.

I don't believe it.  And neither does Ryan Ballengee:

http://www.waggleroom.com/2010/1/30/1284567/callaway-mickelson-using-wedge

The popular notion right now is that the USGA and the Tour got caught with their pants down; that they were ignorant of the fact that these old Pings were grandfathered by virtue of Ping's old legal settlements.  That's not true.  The other myth is that while they knew that the old PIngs would still be grandfathered, the USGA and the Tour miscalculated badly, not realizing that players would find and use the old Pings, because of superior performance.  I'm not buyin' that one either.  

John Daly put a couple of the Pings in his whatever-brand bag.  I might try to think about what Daly was trying to accomplish, but it gives me a headache.
 
Then there is Mickelson.  The master provacateur of our time.  See Ryan Ballengee's article on Phil.

So who else is swtiching to old Pings?  None of the leaders this week.  A small handful of Ping staffers.  And an even tinier group of guys who used Pings in college or in early days on tour.

For his own reasons, Phil Mickelson has almost single-handedly made this an issue.

Edit. -- Tom Doak is absoutely right, too;  whatever you might think about the dispute; if you think it is an unfortunate black eye for golf, without regard to player personalities; Ping could make it all go away with a stroke of a pen on a revised Settlement Agreement with the Tour.  The USGA would likely not need to even be involved, though Far Hills would no doubt be grateful if the Tour, for once, stepped up on an equipment issue.

[Bob_Huntley]

But I think I know what Bobby Jones, Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus would have done.

Rick:

Can you provide a specific example of a time when Mr. Jones, Mr. Palmer, or Mr. Nicklaus did not use a rule to his advantage in order to preserve the "spirit of the game?"

WW
[/quote

Jones turned pro late in life which shocked a few,
Palmer endorsed an illegal driver...
That leaves Jack

Rich,

You must ask the question of Ken Venturi in the Masters when Palmer got a favorable ruling on the 12th at Augusta. To this day he thought Palmer cheated.

Bob

[Kevin_Reilly]

How Watson and others handled a groove controversy in 1977 at the PGA Championship at Pebble:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19770812&id=WnMjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aWcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4094,4662685

[Tim_Cronin]

Kevin,
   Excellent find. Didn't remember that at all. Love Chi Chi's line: "Watson could win with a broomstick."
   Two things are clear from this week: 1. Phil is pulling the chain of golf's rulemakers and the Tour to get their act together; and 2. the PGA Tour and the rest of us need two different sets of rules. We don't really play by the same rules and conditions (I don't have an equipment outfit's van available to me, not an official to tell me the correct rule, nor, come to think of it, Rickie Fowler's shoulder turn) anyway, and anyone who thinks so is enjoying a dream worthy of Walter Mitty.
   And two more things: Scott McCarron may be an idiot, but he's good copy for writers, and this whole affair certainly got the tournament on the map this week. Tiger who?

[Scott Warren]

Rich,

You must ask the question of Ken Venturi in the Masters when Palmer got a favorable ruling on the 12th at Augusta. To this day he thought Palmer cheated.

Bob

Good point. Didn't Palmer get embedded, play out a 5, then decide he would take a drop and get the ruling later, making 3 with the second ball, which was upheld?

If my memory serves me correctly, that's how it played out. Make's Phil's actions pale in comparison.

[V. Kmetz]

I don't have much new to offer except to consolidate the remarks and join with those disappointed in Mickleson's use of the clubs.

1. Though many who condone Phil's decision as "legal" are offering that this aesthetic is in proportion to the demands of modern day elite competition (that every avenue must be exercised to its fullest to gain advantage and victory); they are ignoring the 120+ elite players who chose not to use the PingEye2s, though the advantage was certainly available to them.  Is it that they don't want to win as bad as Phil?  Is Phil's legal advice just better at forecasting the litigation?  Assuming that the Ping Eyes actually DO offer a measurable advantage (they must or there wouldn't be a controversy) and throwing away that portion of players who just do not like them and/or are too non-plus about the possible benefits to want to engage the controversy, that still leaves a healthy number of golfers who exercised the choice NOT to play the clubs.  Why isn't the behavior of 95% of the players taken as the standard?  

2.  Tom Doak, among others, is IMO, entirely correct about tying this decision of Phil's back to an economic and proprietary commercial component.  As much as i agree however, the other side (the Tour's administration and rule of law) is no better morally on this count.  i have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that if I could make a proposal today to Tim Finchem  that he could triple the profits of the Tour and all its players by having only four players a week play video golf in Greenland, he would give it serious consideration.   if the almighty buck - which has turned the exhibition of sports into disposable entertainment - hadn't already poisoned the well, then the recent economy and struggle to find the Roman river of dollars it once swam would provoke finchem to accept such a ridiculous offer.

3.  It is no secret to many ardent golf fans that Phil is known to have a craven, ego-inflated side of his personality that the crowd-a-genic playing conduct belie and that the masses of drunken fans at Bethpage don't see.  At the 06 Open at WF, we caddies had the run of the joint and one of our own had a bag in the tournament further deepening our access to the behind-the-scene conduct of the elite players.  You will remember that Mickelson was flying high at that time, he had won the last two majors at Baltusrol and Augusta, Tiger had just lost Earl and it seemed Phil was going to break free and start uncorking the major trophies that everyone thought he should have all along.  Of course, he collapsed and hasn't been a consistent major factor since, but in that time his Tour behind-his-back-nickname was "FIGJAM" - which stood for "F**k I'm Great, Just Ask Me."  i didn't put that down there just to take a shot at him, but to demonstrate that - just like Tiger with his obnoxious ill-tempered behavior - everyone who knows him, knows that he couldn't give a rats ass about anything but Phil.  This use of the PE2s is not some "conscientious objection," it is Phil finding one more way to let everyone know that he is better than them, and therefore exceptional beyond the group.

cheers

vk

[Sean_A]

Is this what professional golf has come to?  Bickering over grooves?  If not grooves, then distance?  If not distance then putters?  Its always something and its always pathetic.  Its no wonder I can't be bothered to follow the Tour. 

Ciao

[Mark Chaplin]

There is no such thing as "spirit of the rules", as much as I dislike PM, if it's not illegal it's legal.

These tour events raise little interest other than lining the players pockets and I though no one watched golf in the US if TW wasn't playing?

[Gary Slatter]

Rick, you are 100% correct in my opinion.  Team Phil is not following the spirit of the game, and the PGA is bound by an agreement with PING that would have Ping owning the Tour if ....

[Niall C]

Rick,

I can't agree with anything here.  First of all, it's legal.  I see your point, but it's legal...end of story.

Second, to imply that golf is in trouble because of "leaders like Phil" is absurd.  Golf is in trouble for a lot of reasons, but this isn't one of them.

Mike

I generally agree with you but if I could pick you up on one thing it is that it is the business of golf that is in trouble, not the game itself.

Niall

[Mike Sweeney]

Both are legal.

[Tim Bert]

Seems like this Phil-bashing thread should havee the same big OT in front of it that the Tiger-bashing threads had. Hopefully it el receive the same fate, which is to say it will be deleted.

The comments about the 95% not isn't them because they are taking the higher road is absurd. Most of these guys either don't thnk there is a significant enough advantage to be gained or they can't employ the tactic because of equipment deals. The dudes on the tour aren't the saints that many of you would just love to believe.

How do I know this?  The same way that those of you who think you know Phil and Tiger and Arnie and Jack and everyone else's motivations. I don't... Which is exactly why this garbage should be deleted.   

 

[JESII]

Or...this could be a setup for next weeks return to Callaway's wedges - "because they're so much better than anything on the market previously...and the ball actually spins more..."

What do you think? When does he play next? 3 Drivers and 4 wedges and he wins the Match Play?

[BCrosby]

Sully - Maybe.

But help me out here. Even in my darkest, most cynical moments I'm having trouble coming up with reasons why Ping doesn't agree to modify the 1990 settlement to fix this loophole. It's not like they can start making pre-1990 wedges again. Why their reluctance to fix this? Why wouldn't they want the goodwill for being the good guy here? Why, to the contrary, are they insisting on enforcing the letter of the agreement? What's in this for Ping? From where I sit they are doing themselves no favors. What am I missing?

Bob   

[Tim Nugent]

I have The Rules of Golf and Decisions on the Rules of Golf, anyone know where I can get a copy of "The Spirit of the Rules of Golf"?

Perhaps the Tour (along w/the USGA) should just purchase 51% of the shares in Ping and put this issue to rest once and for all so we can get back to the merits of golf course design.

[Rick Shefchik]

Rich,

You must ask the question of Ken Venturi in the Masters when Palmer got a favorable ruling on the 12th at Augusta. To this day he thought Palmer cheated.

Bob

Good point. Didn't Palmer get embedded, play out a 5, then decide he would take a drop and get the ruling later, making 3 with the second ball, which was upheld?

If my memory serves me correctly, that's how it played out. Make's Phil's actions pale in comparison.

That's Ken Venturi's side of the story. There was a Masters rules official on the spot, and the entire incident was discussed at length after the round. Palmer's score on the second ball was upheld. Both he and Venturi had their day in court, and Palmer's case won. Where's the violation?

[Jim_Kennedy]

What's in this for Ping? From where I sit they are doing themselves no favors. What am I missing?
Bob   

Free publicity in a period where everyone is spending less, plus, Karsten Solheim's family is never going to throw his memory under the bus. KS, like Mickelson today, did nothing wrong when he made his wedges, it was only an unclear interpretation of where to measure that caused the problem, not a preconceived challenge of the type Ely Callaway pulled later.

Karsten Solheim is probably rolling over in his grave, from laughter.

[Rick Shefchik]

Seems like this Phil-bashing thread should havee the same big OT in front of it that the Tiger-bashing threads had. Hopefully it el receive the same fate, which is to say it will be deleted.

The comments about the 95% not isn't them because they are taking the higher road is absurd. Most of these guys either don't thnk there is a significant enough advantage to be gained or they can't employ the tactic because of equipment deals. The dudes on the tour aren't the saints that many of you would just love to believe.

How do I know this?  The same way that those of you who think you know Phil and Tiger and Arnie and Jack and everyone else's motivations. I don't... Which is exactly why this garbage should be deleted.   

 

Tim,
I didn't start this thread as a Phil-bashing exercise, and I didn't label it OT because it isn't OT. It goes to the heart of what we discuss here day after day: protecting current golf course design.

I understood that the PGA Tour instituted the U-groove ban because it was trying to rein in driving distance on tour (less incentive to risk driving it into the rough, more incentive to play a softer, shorter-flying ball), which in turn would minimize the need for golf courses to keep adding length, and keep new courses from the necessity of creating 8,000 yard tees.

I believed the Tour players understood this. I even believed most of them agreed with the spirit of this ruling. I was disappointed to find that, for his own reasons, Phil Mickelson and a few other players decided to use a wedge that was legal only because of a loophole -- Phil's word, not mine. I wrote about Mickelson rather than the other players because he is undoubtedly the most influential player on Tour right now.

Is that your definition of OT garbage?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

.........and who knows, we might see a re-release of this wedge for one year, similar to Titleist's move when their original PT model was getting so much exposure.

[Kalen Braley]

Rich,

You must ask the question of Ken Venturi in the Masters when Palmer got a favorable ruling on the 12th at Augusta. To this day he thought Palmer cheated.

Bob

Good point. Didn't Palmer get embedded, play out a 5, then decide he would take a drop and get the ruling later, making 3 with the second ball, which was upheld?

If my memory serves me correctly, that's how it played out. Make's Phil's actions pale in comparison.

That's Ken Venturi's side of the story. There was a Masters rules official on the spot, and the entire incident was discussed at length after the round. Palmer's score on the second ball was upheld. Both he and Venturi had their day in court, and Palmer's case won. Where's the violation?

Rick,

That same logic can also be used to vindicate Phil as the PGA tour has released a statement that the use of the club is legal.  So Phil has had his day in court too and also "won".

Just sayin' 

[Kalen Braley]

I'm by no means a big poster here, but today I'm finding myself defending two people I really don't care that much for--Trump and Phil.

Rick--when your accountant calls you and says "I worked my butt off all weekend and I think I found a completely legal but little-used deduction that should save you $2500 on your taxes", what do you say?  "No thanks, my country is in a financial pickle, I can't in good conscience do that because that's not the intent of that particular tax law"?  No, of course you don't.

Quit jammering about how Phil should be above this.  First off, I completely believe he's doing this to needle the PGA Tour, and I believe he's probably doing this with Callaway's support.  Second, for the umpteenth time, he's WELL WITHIN THE RULES OF THE GAME here.

I think Jason asked an excellent question back on Page 1 and I'm kind of surprised no one attempted to answer this.  Has anyone here ever been shown a little known deduction loopohole on thier taxes and then bypassed using it because "its against the spirit of the rules"?

The biggest issue I have with the "spirit of the rules" is they are often vague, open to personal intrepetation, and they aren't written down.  Other than that, they are excellent.. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()