[Chuck Brown]

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.

Jim, you are correct; the Ping Eye 2 controversy arose when Ping merely rounded off ("radiused") the edges of its already-existing and compliant Eye 2 series.  And the radius led, inadvertently, to the condition in which the land-to-groove volume ratio was a violation of the Rules.  No one ever accused Karsten of deliberately trying to cheat.  And yes, the point at which the groove shoulder was to be measured was only determined after the fact of the noncompliant design was discovered.

But the subsequent litigation was a serious challenge to the USGA's basic authority, and the odious nature of the litigation as pursued by Ping and its lawyer, Leonard Decof, a personal injury lawyer from Providence, RI, was deliberate.  Decof was, by outward appearances, an odd choice for the case.  There is a story as to why Karsten Solheim hired Decof; I've forgotten the details from 20 years ago.  In any event, while Karsten Solheim did not deliberately set out to become a Rules Outlaw on the subject of grooves, the USGA litigation WAS ENTIRELY the doing of Karsten Solheim.  It will forever be a dark chapter for Karsten and Ping as far as I am concerned.  Solheim hired an ass, and they all behaved like asses.

Yes, this issue is now one that directly involves Ping and the Tour, stemming from their separate agreement in 1993.

Yes, Ping could solve the problem with a stroke of a pen on an Amended Settlement Agreement.

Yes, Ping would/could arguably turn that act of cooperation into some goodwill.

We shall see what Ping does.

*One other thing, Jim; in 1998, it was announced that Callaway had retained Decof around the time of the Callaway ERCII/CoR kerfuffle.  The announcement that he had been retained by Callaway, after the experience of the Ping litigation, was like a gigantic middle finger, with a Callaway logo on it, being raised up in front of the USGA.  I really do think it is the great underreported story in all of this -- that Mickelson is almost certainly playing with the Ping wedge just to figuratively raise a middle finger to the USGA.  That it is not about Phil the Competitor at all.  Rather, that it is all about Phil the Provacateur, and Phil the Agent of Callaway's simmering grievance(s) with the USGA.

[Chuck Brown]

.........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.

Jim, if I understand you correctly (a re-release, by Ping, of the old-design, radiused u-groove Eye 2); that cannot happen per Ping's settlement agreement with the USGA.  Ping got the existing clubs grandfathered, and agreed that no more would be built to that spec and if they were, they'd be non-compliant.

[JESII]

Bob Crosby,

What would be in it for Ping to sing the release?

Would a single person then go and buy one of their clubs that wasn't previously intending to do so?

As to Phil, it will be interesting to see this evolve. While he's done some interesting things before, could he really be that pissed at the USGA (or PGA Tour) to think playing this club for an event or two will bother them?

I'm placing the over/under at Friday of Bay Hill as the last day the Ping groove issue is discussed...any takers?

[Brent Hutto]

I'm placing the over/under at Friday of Bay Hill as the last day the Ping groove issue is discussed...any takers?

Depends. Will Tiger be playing at Bay Hill?

[BCrosby]

"What would be in it for Ping to sign the release?"

The goodwill derived from stepping up to resolve this mess with a stroke of their pen.  

"Would a single person then go and buy one of their clubs that wasn't previously intending to do so?"

On the margin, it's always better to have more goodwill than less. It's good for the bottom line. That's why companies care about it.


Mystified, Bob

[Chuck Brown]

Bob Crosby,

What would be in it for Ping to sing the release?

Would a single person then go and buy one of their clubs that wasn't previously intending to do so?

As to Phil, it will be interesting to see this evolve. While he's done some interesting things before, could he really be that pissed at the USGA (or PGA Tour) to think playing this club for an event or two will bother them?

I'm placing the over/under at Friday of Bay Hill as the last day the Ping groove issue is discussed...any takers?

I kind of agree that the Eye 2 issue has a short shelf life, only becuase I don't think that there is any real performance advantage.  Which of course again raises the question why is Mickelson making such a big deal out of exploiting it?

As to "What's in it for Ping?", it is an interesting question.  [Edit. - I'm with Bob Crosby; see above.]

One question that I'd like to see put to John Solheim, in a very public setting, is this:  "John, your company is not making any more Eye 2's.  You don't need to protect the interests of recreational players who innocently bought Eye 2's 25 years ago.  And you've already begun regular production of newly-compliant products for the retail market, under the new groove rules.  What, John, is Ping's interest in enforcing the terms of the old 1993 Settlement Agreement, and prolonging this controversy among Tour players?"

[Jim_Kennedy]

Chuck,
That's entirely possible about remaking the club in the same image. An imperceptible tidying up of the groove/radiused edge  would get rid of that problem.

I think that the actions taken by the PGA Tour at the time were what was driving Karsten, and the only path to stop them from banning square grooves was to sue the ruling body, and winning that suit, thereby removing much of the cover that the Tour was using, especially when Karsten got the USGA to stipulate that there was no competitive advantage to using his clubs. If the Tour 'got away' with their maneuvers we might not be talking about this today as it could very wll have put Karsten (the company) out of business.
I don't think this was as serious a challenge as Callaway's, mainly because Karsten and the Tour signed an agreement that they would both abide by USGA rules if the Tour lifted its ban on square grooves.  

So in the end the USGA came out on top.  

[JESII]

I'm placing the over/under at Friday of Bay Hill as the last day the Ping groove issue is discussed...any takers?

Depends. Will Tiger be playing at Bay Hill?

Brent, the house will not be letting on any information that might sway your opinion one way or the other...

[Bruce Katona]

1. Club was legal - there is no issue.
2. Why would Ping amend their agreement?  You guys are all businessmen...why in the world would you sign an amended agreement giving away something negotiated in return for nothing, zero, nada?  If Ping gets something (who knows what the ask is) in return they'll do it in a minute as they goit all of the free PR this week and will get additional good PR bu making press release announcing the amended agreement.   This is business 101.

[JSlonis]

Chuck,

I think your statement in bold is close to the real reason.

Phill basically gave the reason in his post round interview.  His point is that last year, he and the designers at Callaway sent in wedges made to the new specs the USGA originally called for.  Those wedges were still deemed illegal and the USGA changed the process mid stream.  He said, "I had "legal" clubs that were ruled illegal and now I have an illegal club that is legal.  It's a stupid rule."

I can't really say if there's more of an ulterior motive behind his decision to play the Ping wedge other than to thumb his nose at the governing bodies of golf who he disagrees with. 

[PCCraig]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Phil M. has the most over-rated short game in the history of Golf. His putting is mediocre at best and for everyone of those completely unnessiarily high full swing flop shots he pulls off he shanks 4 of them.

The reason he is so upset about the groove rule is that it hits him where it hurts. Now he can't play his "Bomb and Gouge" style golf as effectivly as he used to. That goes for the irons through the wedge. News flash Phil...you might have to hit a fairway now in order to win a tournament.  

Phil said it himself, these Ping wedges were "approved" under the current 2010 groove guidelines while many of his X Tour wedges that he sent in from Callaway were denied. So according to the PGA Tour / USGA there is no advantage to using these wedges, regardless of square or U grooves. So why is he doing this? Because he's a baby and trying to proove a point.

The PGA Tour will stand behind him because  they need him right now with Tiger out, but imagine how much they would stand behind him if he actually played more regular stops and really supported the Tour beyond his required weekly pro-am.

As for the people who say Scott McCarron shouldn't talk as he uses a belly putter...that's insane. If they were "cheating" more people would win with them, but the only people who use them suck at putting regardless of what they are using, so who cares if they use a belly or short putter???

[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.   

 

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?  

I stand by my previous statement that the failure to play the Ping wedges by most of the tour players has nothing to do with a spirit of a rule.  If these guys thought they could make more money playing the wedge, and were contractually able to do so, they would do so.  Tour players have been using the rules to their advantage since rules have been around.  How can anyone fault them for that? I can't tell you how many rules officials say something to the effect of "the rules are there to help the player that understands them."

My definition of OT garbage relates directly to all the unfounded mud-slinging directed at players' reputations.  While it may not have been your intent to start a player-bashing thread you certainly didn't help matters when you started the topic with a subject mocking Mr. Mickelson.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

This is all a bonus for Phil, no one is talking about his breasts anymore.

[Will MacEwen]

I'm placing the over/under at Friday of Bay Hill as the last day the Ping groove issue is discussed...any takers?

Depends. Will Tiger be playing at Bay Hill?

Brent, the house will not be letting on any information that might sway your opinion one way or the other...

The Friday of Bay Hill is when players have to put their names in for the next week's event.  I think Jim is suggesting that Tiger will make his return to the Tour following Bay Hill, which would become known on the Friday of Bay Hill.

[Brent Hutto]

As for the people who say Scott McCarron shouldn't talk as he uses a belly putter...that's insane. If they were "cheating" more people would win with them, but the only people who use them suck at putting regardless of what they are using, so who cares if they use a belly or short putter???

Then quit bitching about Phil's wedge until he wins a tournament with it.

[Brent Hutto]

The Friday of Bay Hill is when players have to put their names in for the next week's event.  I think Jim is suggesting that Tiger will make his return to the Tour following Bay Hill, which would become known on the Friday of Bay Hill.

Then I take the "under".

[BCrosby]

Why would Ping amend their agreement?  You guys are all businessmen...why in the world would you sign an amended agreement giving away something negotiated in return for nothing, zero, nada?  

What benefits does Ping receive by not amending the settlement to exclude its application to PGA events?

[PThomas]

opinion from a disinterested spectator who is also NOT an equipment freak: if the wedge is legal then its ok to use it...if that's the case because of a loophole then close the loophole

just like the long putter:  if its legal why not use it if it helps?

[JESII]

My only position on this is that the groove issue is a very short term issue that in the world of golf look like a big deal...and really only because Phil is doing it.

Forget Tiger, the grooves will not be discussed after about 1 more start from Phil...unless Tiger does return with a full set of Ping wedges bent to his lofts of 3 iron through 60 degrees...

Now that would be fun...

[Chuck Brown]

opinion from a disinterested spectator who is also NOT an equipment freak: if the wedge is legal then its ok to use it...if that's the case because of a loophole then close the loophole

just liek the long putter:  if its legal why not use it if it helps?

Paul, the "loophole" for the Ping Eye 2 is not in the Rules of Golf, nor in the Appendices (well, it might be now), nor in any Condition of Competition, i.e., the One-ball rule.

Ping's loophole is an agreement, in which a lawsuit was settled.  It is not a court order, so the parties can amend it.  It is also not a Rule, so it does not necessarily involve the USGA, at least for purposes of competitive play on the PGA Tour.

[PCCraig]

As for the people who say Scott McCarron shouldn't talk as he uses a belly putter...that's insane. If they were "cheating" more people would win with them, but the only people who use them suck at putting regardless of what they are using, so who cares if they use a belly or short putter???

Then quit bitching about Phil's wedge until he wins a tournament with it.

You should learn how to read.

I clearly state that his Ping Wedge is in no way an advantage. He said it, the USGA said it, and I'm saying it. I wrote that Phil needs the 2009 square grooves in order to play his bomber style game from the rough, that's why he is so bent out of shape.

Just like it doesn't matter what kind of putter (long or short) bad putters use, it doesn't matter what kind of wedge Phil uses.

[Richard Hetzel]

Bob Crosby,

What would be in it for Ping to sing the release?

Would a single person then go and buy one of their clubs that wasn't previously intending to do so?

As to Phil, it will be interesting to see this evolve. While he's done some interesting things before, could he really be that pissed at the USGA (or PGA Tour) to think playing this club for an event or two will bother them?

I'm placing the over/under at Friday of Bay Hill as the last day the Ping groove issue is discussed...any takers?

I kind of agree that the Eye 2 issue has a short shelf life, only becuase I don't think that there is any real performance advantage.  Which of course again raises the question why is Mickelson making such a big deal out of exploiting it?

As to "What's in it for Ping?", it is an interesting question.  [Edit. - I'm with Bob Crosby; see above.]

One question that I'd like to see put to John Solheim, in a very public setting, is this:  "John, your company is not making any more Eye 2's.  You don't need to protect the interests of recreational players who innocently bought Eye 2's 25 years ago.  And you've already begun regular production of newly-compliant products for the retail market, under the new groove rules.  What, John, is Ping's interest in enforcing the terms of the old 1993 Settlement Agreement, and prolonging this controversy among Tour players?"

Actually, you can ORDER a BRAND NEW set of Eye 2 irons from Ping, in 2010. With conforming grooves of course. Cost = expensive for 20+ year old technology, $1000+

Order through your pro shop that has a Ping account. Anyone know if Ping's sales of Eye 2 irons are up?

Ping didn't create this problem, the USGA did when they enacted this NEW rule without claculating how many current tour pros would actually try the old, grooves in question clubs in tournaments.

PS:  BTW, if I was Ping I would figure out a way to positively use this for increased marketing exposure.



Rich

[Bruce Katona]

BCrosby: As of now they got quite a bit of free PR this week by not amending the present agreement.  To facilitate amending the current document, something Ping wants needs to be either agreed to or offered by the Ruling Body. 

[Chuck Brown]

Actually, you can ORDER a BRAND NEW set of Eye 2 irons from Ping, in 2010. With conforming grooves of course. Cost = expensive for 20+ year old technology, $1000+

Order through your pro shop that has a Ping account. Anyone know if Ping's sales of Eye 2 irons are up?

Ping didn't create this problem, the USGA did when they enacted this NEW rule without claculating how many current tour pros would actually try the old, grooves in question clubs in tournaments.

PS:  BTW, if I was Ping I would figure out a way to positively use this for increased marketing exposure.



Rich

So, what is the point of ordering Ping Eye 2's if they are current, conforming grooves?  Is it for dumb, ignorant, well-heeled country club types who think that something is good because it says "Ping Eye 2" on it?  For people who have a lot more money than technical golf knowledge?  Why not buy a set of grandfathered grooves, off ebay, for half the price?

What is the point of Phil Mickelson playing with even an old, grandfathered Ping Eye 2 L-wedge?  Performance difference?  Says who?

Rich, I think the USGA did calculate how many Tour Pros would use the old Ping Eye 2's.  They probably thought that it would be an insignificant handful.  They were right.  It is an insignificant handful.  All except for the headline-grabbing power of Phil Mickelson.  Who should be aksed some pointed questions -- "Phil, exacly how much more spin are you getting with the old Eye 2?  Why did you just put it in the bag a week ago?  Why haven't you been using one all along?  How much work did you do with old Eye 2's since your last tornament last year?"

[Chuck Brown]

Bob Crosby,

What would be in it for Ping to sing the release?

Would a single person then go and buy one of their clubs that wasn't previously intending to do so?

As to Phil, it will be interesting to see this evolve. While he's done some interesting things before, could he really be that pissed at the USGA (or PGA Tour) to think playing this club for an event or two will bother them?

I'm placing the over/under at Friday of Bay Hill as the last day the Ping groove issue is discussed...any takers?

I kind of agree that the Eye 2 issue has a short shelf life, only becuase I don't think that there is any real performance advantage.  Which of course again raises the question why is Mickelson making such a big deal out of exploiting it?

As to "What's in it for Ping?", it is an interesting question.  [Edit. - I'm with Bob Crosby; see above.]

One question that I'd like to see put to John Solheim, in a very public setting, is this:  "John, your company is not making any more Eye 2's.  You don't need to protect the interests of recreational players who innocently bought Eye 2's 25 years ago.  And you've already begun regular production of newly-compliant products for the retail market, under the new groove rules.  What, John, is Ping's interest in enforcing the terms of the old 1993 Settlement Agreement, and prolonging this controversy among Tour players?"

Actually, you can ORDER a BRAND NEW set of Eye 2 irons from Ping, in 2010. With conforming grooves of course. Cost = expensive for 20+ year old technology, $1000+

Order through your pro shop that has a Ping account. Anyone know if Ping's sales of Eye 2 irons are up?

Ping didn't create this problem, the USGA did when they enacted this NEW rule without claculating how many current tour pros would actually try the old, grooves in question clubs in tournaments.

PS:  BTW, if I was Ping I would figure out a way to positively use this for increased marketing exposure.



Rich

Oh, and about Ping "creating" a problem.  I think that none of this would ever have been a problem if Ping hadn't sued back in the 1990's.  One of the really bad, regrettable decisions in the history of the game, knocking the USGA on its butt in terms of equipment regulation for the next quarter-century...

Ping "created" that problem...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()