Thanks for the leadership, Phil

[Bill_McBride]

Jim,
I'm a big believer in the USGA and have said so many times, but when you're wrong, you're wrong, and in their dispute with Karsten they were wrong.

Karsten followed the rules and measured the grooves from wall to wall. When Karsten rounded the edge the USGA acquired one, found that it was .005 over, and said that made them non-conforming, but what made them so, the 30-degree method for measuring rounded grooves, did not exist at that time and was only added after the dispute with Ping.
 
Karsten had sold several hundred thousand sets of Ping Eyes by the time of the ruling and the USGA should have let the issue pass.
After all, the .005 discrepancy was less than the width of a human hair.
Imagine, something less than the width of a human hair almost ruined a company, a ruling body, and professional golf tours. Makes me wonder who and what was really behind the USGA's and the PGA Tour's attack on Karsten Co.

I think the USGA is fortunate that it was settled out of court.   

That's the Karsten case.

There's the USGA case; that Karsten did not resubmit the Eye 2 for testing after the radiusing was done.  That however-many human hair-widths you want to talk about, the club did not conform to the land-to-volume ratio.  Do you suppose that any putts have missed the mark by a hair's width in the history of the game?

Talk of any "ruination" for Ping was and is ridiculous.  Ping was able to make changes for all future production very easily.  Ping has made about a dozen or more different iron models since then.  There was no great investment in new technology in the case of Ping's accidental violation through ordinary radiusing.

I might be troubled by the effect of the ruling on golfers who innocently bought non-conforming Ping Eye 2's in the mid-1980's.  I might be, in the company of anyone who is willing to be equally troubled by Ping's thuggish and obnoxious legal tactics.  (Suing USGA and R&A Executive officers personally, etc.)

You've raised some good points for Karsten's side of the story.  The USGA had their side.  And, as with most intelligently- and reasonably-handled litigation, it was settled.  But the net effect for The Game of Golf was a vastly diminished USGA, at a time when the onslaught of equipment technology was heating up significantly.  I don't care what anybody thinks; if the game of golf is dominated by the equipment manufacturers, it is not good for the game.

Anybody know who paid who when the case was settled out of court?   

[Richard Hetzel]

Would Callaway now be able to sue the USGA for changing the rule mid-stream? It appears eerily simiar to the Ping situation in way.....Ping's recent statement is interesting, especially that last sentence.....

[jeffwarne]

Look, I don't fault the USGA for what they are trying to do. I don't even fault the management of the USGA, they have a hard job, but I just think changing the ball would have been the best way to go about doing.

And that's the hell of it. The whole thing is premised on moronic wishful thinking that if we change the grooves that's going to change the spin which will change how they control it out of the rough which will make them not want to hit it so far which will make them change golf balls which will solve the "distance problem". Good grief.

Idiots.

What he said

I'm stashing some current balls and clubs in case they outlaw, then grandfather them.

[Jud_T]

Phil may come off as a tool, but he's well within his rights...He simply doesn't understand his position on tour like Tiger does.  Oh, wait a minute.....

[Sean Leary]

Personally, the whole idea that Phil is a cheater is laughable. Let's review:

1. The clubs that he uses have been deemed legal by the ruling body of his tour;
2. He, and others, are free to use the clubs;
3. He, and others, use the clubs.

Until the PGA Tour declares the clubs to be illegal, the players are free to play them. As much as I disagree with McCarron's approach to this, I'm not going to attempt to make an arguement based on McCarron's hypocrisy, because McCarron uses a broomhandle puter. Why? Because SM's putter of choice, like the Ping Eye 2 wedges, have been delcared by the PGA Tour to be legal.

Another thing: I've read opinions on this thread that describe PM as a "baby", a "cheater", etc. I've mentioned this before on this site but you can judge a person's character by the company he keeps. And PM has been married to the same woman for a number of years without whispers of "transgressions", has had the same caddy since he joined the tour a couple decades ago, has had the same agent for the same amount of time and seemingly has a loving relationship with his parents and siblings. To me, that speaks volumes more about the guy than some who have based their opinions on what they've read or watched on TV.

Be careful about making Phil a saint. Just sayin......

[George Pazin]

I've never been a Phil fan.  On this issue, however, it is useful to remember that professional golf is his occupation.  With far less money at stake, I suspect everybody on this site would take full advantage of a legal loophole in preparing their federal income tax return and not think twice.  I don't know about you but I rarely pass a dollar dropped on the ground either.  

Wouldn't you say a better analogy would be to let the head of the IRS cheat on his taxes...

[Jerry Kluger]

Let's face it - the USGA and the PGA Tour blew it - either that or they don't have the backbone to admit that they saw this coming and there was nothing they could do about it.

[Rick Shefchik]

As I said to Tim Bert, I didn't want this thread to be a plebiscite on whether Phil Mickelson is a good guy. And as I stated at the outset, I don't think he cheated. I recognize his right to use whatever club is legally sanctioned by the PGA Tour and the USGA, even if it is made legal by a loophole, to use Phil's own term.

This thread was supposed to be about judgment and leadership. We've clearly got a mess on our hands here, and I think it would have been less messy if Phil had stepped into the breach left by Tiger's absence and said, "I'm not going to play the Ping wedge." It was a missed opportunity.

But I thank those who have contributed knowledge about the court cases and equipment history that led us to where we are. I've learned from this thread.

[Will MacEwen]

When the old ProV1s had seams, and everyone teed them up to hit them on the seam and pick up 5-10 yards, was that any more in the spirit of the rules than playing these wedges?  Those balls had an irregularity which the players took advantage of, many of them talking about it on the record.  I don't recall any other pros saying it was against the spirit of the rules or the game, or calling out players for doing it. 

[Dale Jackson]

When the old ProV1s had seams, and everyone teed them up to hit them on the seam and pick up 5-10 yards, was that any more in the spirit of the rules than playing these wedges?  Those balls had an irregularity which the players took advantage of, many of them talking about it on the record.  I don't recall any other pros saying it was against the spirit of the rules or the game, or calling out players for doing it. 

Will, your post assumes that seam business actually had some validity to it.  I do not recall it ever being verified empirically.  If I had a dollar for every time a pro claimed they were getting an extra 10/15/20 yards because of Product X, Y or Z, I would be a rich man!

[Will MacEwen]

When the old ProV1s had seams, and everyone teed them up to hit them on the seam and pick up 5-10 yards, was that any more in the spirit of the rules than playing these wedges?  Those balls had an irregularity which the players took advantage of, many of them talking about it on the record.  I don't recall any other pros saying it was against the spirit of the rules or the game, or calling out players for doing it. 

Will, your post assumes that seam business actually had some validity to it.  I do not recall it ever being verified empirically.  If I had a dollar for every time a pro claimed they were getting an extra 10/15/20 yards because of Product X, Y or Z, I would be a rich man!

You are probably skeptical about The Hammer informercial - what fun is that?

[Matt_Ward]

Rick:

I'm curious -- how come you did not start an earlier thread when Palmer was involved with the Callaway situation from a few years back?

You asked why Phil didn't step up and show leadership. Why should a player voluntarily disarm when the club in quesrtion is permissible? I think you are confusing leadership in the wrong area - ask the folks at the USGA who allowed broomstick putters -- drivers with titanium faces and all the other elements that you and others bemoan.

[Rick Shefchik]

Matt,

How do you know I didn't? The Palmer episode certainly pre-dates my involvement on GCA.

[Chuck Brown]

Would Callaway now be able to sue the USGA for changing the rule mid-stream? It appears eerily simiar to the Ping situation in way.....Ping's recent statement is interesting, especially that last sentence.....

Very fair question, Rich.  I'll try to answer it in the voice of a USGA lawyer...

"The USGA did not change the rule in mid-stream.  The USGA refined the rule, and did so before the effective date of Jan. 1, 2009.  The current case differs from the Ping Eye 2 case in a vey important aspect; Callaway, last fall, did what Ping failed to do, in 1984.  Callaway dutifully submitted samples to be tested.  By doing so, the USGA was able to inform Callaway that the design would not be permitted.  In that way, Callawy put no non-conforming clubs into competition, and did not gear up for any retail production, and no clubs in the retail chain needed to be withdrawn.  In fairness to Callaway, who says that they spent $300,000 in R&D working on its prototypes, we are sorry.  We migh have been able to give them a negative response ealrier, had they asked.  We do understand that OEM's will always be developing prototypes, trying to pus the envelope as it were.  For the good of the game, we as the USGA need to play defense in that regard.  But we try to keep an open door to all of the manufacturers for their benefit.  We're sorry for any substantial losses for Callaway; we believe that we have fulfilled our mission to be golf's legal guardian.  If Callaway wanted to sell the club as a non-conforming item, we suppose that they could, but we would regard it as contrary to the Rules for all play.  That would be Callaway's decision..."

[Matt_Ward]

Rick:

It's so easy to pick on Phil -- you'd have shown me and others a bit more courage by taking on the King when he caved in to the $$ provided from Callaway in promoting clubs that WERE illegal.

Rick, the real barking should be at those within the USGA -- especially those at the top of the pyramid who permitted all the elements we see today.

Phil is not the issue -- the continuation of using him as a convenient punching bag is getting a bit tired. Might be nice to change the title of this thread to the more responsible parties instead of Lefty.

[Sam Morrow]

I can't stand Phil but he has done nothing wrong. I think many posters around here won't be pleased with anything until all tour players wear coats and ties and play with hickory shafted clubs, oh and I almost forgot that they can't use tees but clumps of dirt.

[Brent Hutto]

I can't stand Phil but he has done nothing wrong. I think many posters around here won't be pleased with anything until all tour players wear coats and ties and play with hickory shafted clubs, oh and I almost forgot that they can't use tees but clumps of dirt.

You left off "and play on the Senior Tour if they're famous and fabulously wealthy" as well as "autograph every object stuck in front of them" and "play in all the tournaments nobody gives a shit about" and whatever else is on the laundry list of how elite golfers are supposed to live an acceptable life.

[Sam Morrow]

I can't stand Phil but he has done nothing wrong. I think many posters around here won't be pleased with anything until all tour players wear coats and ties and play with hickory shafted clubs, oh and I almost forgot that they can't use tees but clumps of dirt.

You left off "and play on the Senior Tour if they're famous and fabulously wealthy" as well as "autograph every object stuck in front of them" and "play in all the tournaments nobody gives a shit about" and whatever else is on the laundry list of how elite golfers are supposed to live an acceptable life.

Sorry, that's my fault!

[Rick Shefchik]

Rick:

It's so easy to pick on Phil -- you'd have shown me and others a bit more courage by taking on the King when he caved in to the $$ provided from Callaway in promoting clubs that WERE illegal.

Rick, the real barking should be at those within the USGA -- especially those at the top of the pyramid who permitted all the elements we see today.

Phil is not the issue -- the continuation of using him as a convenient punching bag is getting a bit tired. Might be nice to change the title of this thread to the more responsible parties instead of Lefty.

Matt, showing you courage really wasn't on my radar screen in 2000.

And by the way, Palmer said at the time that the ERC should not be used in competition. I'm not saying I agree with his stand, but we're talking apples and oranges.

[Jerry Kluger]

Chuck: More bad legal work by the USGA.  Is the effective date January 1, 2009 - is that correct or did he misspeak, is it a typo or is it sloppiness?  The statement says nothing about whether they considered the Ping issue and how they were going to deal with it - it's critical and if they simply ignored it then they shouldn't be in charge - if they missed it, then they need to explain how they plan on dealing with it. You don't ignore mistakes you deal with them.

[Wade Whitehead]

Rick:

I've read the thread with interest.  I asked two questions a while back that were never answered, but I didn't expect them to be.  Great players have always used the rules to their advantage, which is one of the purposes of the rules to begin with.

I think what you're saying is that just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean they SHOULD do it.  I agree with this.  It's the reason I don't rattle change in someone elses backswing and is why I fix an extra ballmark each time I'm on a green.  I'm not unusual in this way; fortunately, golf is full of this sort of behavior.  I'm sure you exhibit and expect it when you play.

However, Phil's job is to maximize his chances of performing at the incredibly high level required for success on the biggest stage.  The end doesn't justify the means, but he simply isn't breaking a rule.  He isn't do anything that affects any other player.  And he isn't taking anything from anyone.  I think your qualm is misdirected, perhaps, and that you feel frustration, as I do, over the ridiculous, attorney-driven "rule."  The USGA should sort this out, and quickly.

Thanks, though, for driving some conversation and for not backing down on your opinion.  I always respect that.

WW

[JESII]

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

I knew I wanted to answer something in here somewhere...

I didn't witness it, but read about it years later...

In the Crosby at Pebble, they're playing in a monsoon and there's plenty of casual water on the green. per protocol, Palmer paces from his ball to the hole to measure it, but he uses small steps. In pacing to the clear line of play he takes very long steps and when his playing partner asked why he would move his ball basicall twice as far away as he was entitled he said..."if even one of these people watching thought I took advantage of the rule it just wouldn't be worth it...".

Or something like that!

Not sure what it all means in light of this Mickleson thing being more of an F U than thinking the old wedges might perform better...

[George Pazin]

To look at this from a slightly different angle, I'd remind everyone of the DLIII/Clarke incident at a recent Ryder Cup. DLIII could have asked for relief, and would most likely have received it, by the accounts of most Rules folks familiar with the incident.

Yet Davis did not, he acted in the spirit of the rules.

That's not to say he would have been wrong to follow the rules to the letter, merely to commend him for going the extra step.

I'd argue that if anyone is in position to go the extra step, it's Phil; he's beyond loaded, has all the wins necessary to cement his place in history. It's not like he's a perennial 125th guy looking for every extra edge to survive.

Yet he chose to seek relief under the rules, if you will. It doesn't make him wrong, it just means he missed an opportunity to be a leader. You're free to draw whatever you'd like from that. I happen to agree with Rick's inference. I'm not saying Phil is a bad person, just that it says something about him, and I'll be less likely to listen to him the next time he is in a position to discuss any particular issue in golf.

And Phil wonders why the players weren't asked for more input about the fall schedule, etc...

[Matt_Ward]

Rick:

Here's what you left out -- AP endorsed Callaway products that were illegal. AP lent his names and his pocketbook to such an enterprise. In addition, AP was the point person -- still is -- for the USGA.

Phil's stand -- while questionable to some -- is entirely legal and he doesn't profit from the PING connection since he uses Callaway products.

Change the title of your thread to point out where the real guilty parties are located.

[Bryan Izatt]

Isn't the PGA TOUR a member association governed by a Player Advisory Committee, a Policy Board and a Commissioner.  Don't the players make up the PAC and four ninths of the PB?  Didn't they accept the USGA groove ruling for the TOUR?  Aren't Phil and others p!ssing in the TOUR tent by using the loophole?  Wouldn't the PAC and PB have wanted all the players to be playing on a level field?  I doubt that Ping would have raised any issue if all the TOUR players had decided to use modern technology that complied wit h the new rule.  All is not well in the TOUR tent, but I guess that's not new.