[George Pazin]

While I disagree with Scott McCarren's characterization of Phil Mickelson as a cheater, I'm not the least bit sympathetic about Phil's situation.

With Tiger AWOL, the tour turned to Mickelson as its obvious new figurehead. What was his first act? To put a wedge in his bag that, while technically legal, clearly contradicts the spirit of the new groove ruling. It should be obvious to everyone that the Tour is trying to find a way to rein in bomb-and-gouge golf, for the protection of classic courses and the betterment of its product. Phil's reaction? I see a loophole here, and if it helps me win a few more bucks, screw the intent of the new rule.

With leaders like Phil, no wonder golf is in trouble.

I'm quoting Rick's original post because I believe the spirit of his post has been lost in legal minutiae.

I agree with Rick, I am disappointed in Phil as a leader.

I also agree with Mike Cirba's post about the other TW.

[Jerry Kluger]

I have a recollection that McCarron was a Ping guy for years but I see he is now wearing a Taylormade hat - should that make me a bit suspicious?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Chuck,
The USGA brought it down on themselves, Karsten was only protecting his business.
Any shame falls on them for trying to change the game in midstream, and on the PGA tour for trying to take advantage of the situation.

Bob,
Ping gained a lot of respect back then from its customers because Ping protected the value of the product that those customers bought. Ping also replaced every non-conforming set of Eye 11's that they sold overseas. They brought them all to the U.S., totally refurbished the heads, replaced the shafts and grips, and wholesaled them to shops for a very modest price.

I think there is little chance that they'll be willing to be seen today as not protecting their products, even a 25 year old one.

[Jim Sweeney]

Chuck Brown- Decision USGA/4-1/100. This decision, for the time being, only applies if invoked for the a competition played under USGA Rules. This is probably because the grandfathering of the PiNG Eye 2 has expired under the R&A settlement with Ping

Regardless, the players knew this was coming last year. The Tour would have published the condition prior to the tournamnet season starting. In other words, this situation required no sluething by the players.

Jamie- The USGA did not "change course mid steam" in implementing this rule. When it was announced, the manufacturers immediately began submitting groove designs that followed the letter of the rule but which produced more spin than traditional V grooves. The USGA then clarified the intent of the rule. All the manufacturers now produce conforming gtrooves.

Jim K.- IN 1983, Ping produced and sold a club with a new groove configuration without submitting it to the USGA for compliance testing. How did the USGA bring that situation on themselves?

For a club to qulaify for the exception it must have been manufactured before 1990.

[Tony Ristola]

It's a different era. In the old days players would take someone that pulled a swifty to the woodshed; which is what McCarron did publicly. I can respect his guts for taking a stand.
In the old days the recipient wouldn't have reacted with veiled legal threats, using the word "slander" so often a legal novice could figure out what was going on.

In light of the old days, how about another perspective: What Would Hogan Do? Or have done?
I think we all have an inkling, and illustrates the modern game has lost something.

I can understand both sides, and think it's fair to say Phil won't be looked up to as a leader, or taking the high road.


These clubs are only legal in the US, as the R&A wasn't part of the original agreement. Or, is there an exception for R&A-land too?

.

[Jim_Kennedy]

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.   

[Mike Sweeney]

In light of the old days, how about another perspective: What Would Hogan Do? Or have done?
I think we all have an inkling, and illustrates the modern game has lost something.

In 1984, I caddied in an early Senior Tour event at Newport Country Club. To a man, every player was disappointed at Ben Hogan for not playing on the Senior Tour ever. It was a fledgling tour at that point and for most of the players it was a second chance to make money as most were previously club pros, car salesman or similar. They needed Hogan and he did not come. I am sure Hogan had his reasons, same as Phil.  

From an old article in SI

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1066262/1/index.htm

On the other hand, many have always felt the game is hard enough. Gene Sarazen remembers the reaction in 1932 when he invented the sand wedge, whose effect was far more dramatic than that of square grooves. "Everyone was happy," says the 85-year-old Squire. "Jones was a terrible sand player. Hagen used to chip out of bunkers because he didn't know how to explode with a niblick. That club helped popularize the game. The average player was making sevens and eights when he hit into a trap. He'd come home crabby. But with the sand wedge, he'd make no worse than bogey and come home smiling. There were fewer divorces after I invented that club."

[Chuck Brown]

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.

[Tony Ristola]

In light of the old days, how about another perspective: What Would Hogan Do? Or have done?
I think we all have an inkling, and illustrates the modern game has lost something.

In 1984, I caddied in an early Senior Tour event at Newport Country Club. To a man, every player was disappointed at Ben Hogan for not playing on the Senior Tour ever. It was a fledgling tour at that point and for most of the players it was a second chance to make money as most were previously club pros, car salesman or similar. They needed Hogan and he did not come. I am sure Hogan had his reasons, same as Phil.  

From an old article in SI

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1066262/1/index.htm

On the other hand, many have always felt the game is hard enough. Gene Sarazen remembers the reaction in 1932 when he invented the sand wedge, whose effect was far more dramatic than that of square grooves. "Everyone was happy," says the 85-year-old Squire. "Jones was a terrible sand player. Hagen used to chip out of bunkers because he didn't know how to explode with a niblick. That club helped popularize the game. The average player was making sevens and eights when he hit into a trap. He'd come home crabby. But with the sand wedge, he'd make no worse than bogey and come home smiling. There were fewer divorces after I invented that club."

I can understand Hogan not going out there. His last PGA Tour round was 9-holes, had an early draw, it was cold and his body couldn't handle it. I'm sure he wanted to leave a legacy on the main tour. They may have begged him, but to me it reveals his high standards and dovetails perfectly with his destroying $100,000 worth of clubs at the start of his company (when $100,000 was serious money) and his quote "Your name is the most important thing you own.  Don't ever do anything to disgrace or cheapen it."

For Hogan, playing the Seniors was probably akin to cheapening his name and legacy. Had the Senior Tour not been created, would golf have lost something tremendously valuable? No. We could do just as well without it.

Sarazen didn't manufacture a club, have it declared illegal and then turn around and find a loophole to use it.

Both circumstances don't excuse the loss of spirit today.

Have to say the USGA and PGA Tour screwed the pooch on this one and the biggest issue; the ball. They've neglected the ball issue, and now couldn't see this loophole? It's a pretty high level of incompetence overseeing the game.

Perhaps they assumed a different behavior.

.

[Dale Jackson]

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.

Chuck, I could not agree with you more.  And if anyone thinks the ruling bodies slowness to react to technology advances in the past decade is not directly related to their experience with Ping and the demonstrated requirement to have every possible scenario tested, documented and planned for, think again.  The very real danger of litigation costing millions in legal fees, and of settlements that could easily mean financial ruin for those bodies will and should make every Board member stay awake at night.

I think the manufacturers, in particular those who have tried to get around the rules and bully the ruling bodies, do everyone, including themselves, a very great disservice.  No one wins in the long term with an adversarial and litigious approach.

[Tony Ristola]

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.

Chuck, I could not agree with you more.  And if anyone thinks the ruling bodies slowness to react to technology advances in the past decade is not directly related to their experience with Ping and the demonstrated requirement to have every possible scenario tested, documented and planned for, think again.  The very real danger of litigation costing millions in legal fees, and of settlements that could easily mean financial ruin for those bodies will and should make every Board member stay awake at night.

I think the manufacturers, in particular those who have tried to get around the rules and bully the ruling bodies, do everyone, including themselves, a very great disservice.  No one wins in the long term with an adversarial and litigious approach.

They have dues, TV revenues and what for expenses that sucks all that money? They should have a substantial war chest that would enable them to take on whoever, whenever over whatever (being the ball).

If they lose, so what? Really. It only illustrates they were useless. Better to dump them and start again. USGA 2.0

.

[Mike Sweeney]

I can understand Hogan not going out there. His last PGA Tour round was 9-holes, had an early draw, it was cold and his body couldn't handle it. I'm sure he wanted to leave a legacy on the main tour. They may have begged him, but to me it reveals his high standards and dovetails perfectly with his destroying $100,000 worth of clubs at the start of his company (when $100,000 was serious money) and his quote "Your name is the most important thing you own.  Don't ever do anything to disgrace or cheapen it."

Tony,

Just curious if you have any personal experience with Hogan. I heard a bunch of players that did not have great things to say about him. When Arnold Palmer takes a swipe at you in print.......

http://www.waggleroom.com/2007/5/5/221440/3839

"It's pretty well know that Ben Hogan didn't bond with anyone, but I have to say, he was particularly chilly to me. He very pointedly referred to me as "fella," even face to face. I just accepted it, and in the end he wasn't my type of guy anyway. I wasn't a special case; he didn't bond with Nelson or Snead, either. He was cordial to them but never was close to either man. He never grew close to any golfer, with the possible exceptions of Jackie Burke and Jimmy Demaret. For all the talk of my rivalry with Jack Nicklaus, at heart we truly like each other. I can't say the same for Ben Hogan and me."

I think we glorify the old guys around here too much. From my very limited experience they had many of the same traits as the modern player, only most of them did not get recorded in 24/7 news cycle.

For Hogan, playing the Seniors was probably akin to cheapening his name and legacy. Had the Senior Tour not been created, would golf have lost something tremendously valuable? No. We could do just as well without it.

I for one loved Watson's run last year at The British Open. I don't think that happens without a Senior Tour for him to play on.

I do agree with your point about the lawsuit. When you let lawyers run your business, nobody wins.

[Chuck Brown]

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.

Chuck, I could not agree with you more.  And if anyone thinks the ruling bodies slowness to react to technology advances in the past decade is not directly related to their experience with Ping and the demonstrated requirement to have every possible scenario tested, documented and planned for, think again.  The very real danger of litigation costing millions in legal fees, and of settlements that could easily mean financial ruin for those bodies will and should make every Board member stay awake at night.

I think the manufacturers, in particular those who have tried to get around the rules and bully the ruling bodies, do everyone, including themselves, a very great disservice.  No one wins in the long term with an adversarial and litigious approach.

They have dues, TV revenues and what for expenses that sucks all that money? They should have a substantial war chest that would enable them to take on whoever, whenever over whatever (being the ball).

If they lose, so what? Really. It only illustrates they were useless. Better to dump them and start again. USGA 2.0

.

Well, let's see; they run a museum, with a staff.  They run a library, with a staff.  They run a testing center, with a staff.  They have a remarkable, extensive Green Section and Agronomy staff and a turfgrass center.  They operate GHIN, and a rules staff.  They are responsible for the logistics of a couple-dozen national championships, with many more qualifying events, of which only one provides any serious revenue.

Really, for decades now, sportswriters have gotten fat and lazy with caricatures of the USGA.  You wanna dump the USGA?  Tell me what's better.  Please.  Describe your USGA 2.0...

[Jim Sweeney]

Jim K.-

I think you are right that the USGA was fortunate it was settled. I think Ping was too, because the outcome of a court case was in no way a foregone conclusion regardless of what anyone might think. Whatever that outcome might have been, the game was going to suffer. The USGA could have let the issue pass because noone could prove a performance benefit from the radiused grooves. In the end, isn't that what happened when the grooves were grandfathered, and yet with Ping's agreeing to stop producing that groove, the USGA retained its authority? That's what I meant in saying that a settlement implies that both sides feel they got enough to move forward.

At the announcement of the settlement, in a meeting room of the Hotel Del Coronado in 1989, John Solheim praised the USGA, President Bill Battle, and Frank Thomas for their integrity and their openness in the discovery process and the negotiations. He expressed the need for a strong, independent ruling body. I was there. He did not have to do that. Both sides were obviously relieved.

Even today, on the golf channel. John Feinstein, for crying out loud, cited "the 1989 court ruling that grandfathered the grooves." I couldn't believe it. One commentator after another has made the same or similarly uninformed or just lazy comments. That is the primary reason I've participated in this discussion- to point out the idiocy of how this has been reported, and a few facts that many here may not know. Most of the rest of the debate is conjecture- fun, though!. You and I will absolutely agree in our attitudes toward the USGA.

[Chuck Brown]

Jim K.-

I think you are right that the USGA was fortunate it was settled. I think Ping was too, because the outcome of a court case was in no way a foregone conclusion regardless of what anyone might think. Whatever that outcome might have been, the game was going to suffer. The USGA could have let the issue pass because noone could prove a performance benefit from the radiused grooves. In the end, isn't that what happened when the grooves were grandfathered, and yet with Ping's agreeing to stop producing that groove, the USGA retained its authority? That's what I meant in saying that a settlement implies that both sides feel they got enough to move forward.

At the announcement of the settlement, in a meeting room of the Hotel Del Coronado in 1989, John Solheim praised the USGA, President Bill Battle, and Frank Thomas for their integrity and their openness in the discovery process and the negotiations. He expressed the need for a strong, independent ruling body. I was there. He did not have to do that. Both sides were obviously relieved.

Even today, on the golf channel. John Feinstein, for crying out loud, cited "the 1989 court ruling that grandfathered the grooves." I couldn't believe it. One commentator after another has made the same or similarly uninformed or just lazy comments. That is the primary reason I've participated in this discussion- to point out the idiocy of how this has been reported, and a few facts that many here may not know. Most of the rest of the debate is conjecture- fun, though!. You and I will absolutely agree in our attitudes toward the USGA.

You say that as though you expected accuracy from John Feinstein, and were surprised when he disappointed you.

[Tony Ristola]

Tony,

Just curious if you have any personal experience with Hogan. I heard a bunch of players that did not have great things to say about him. When Arnold Palmer takes a swipe at you in print.......

http://www.waggleroom.com/2007/5/5/221440/3839

"It's pretty well know that Ben Hogan didn't bond with anyone, but I have to say, he was particularly chilly to me. He very pointedly referred to me as "fella," even face to face. I just accepted it, and in the end he wasn't my type of guy anyway. I wasn't a special case; he didn't bond with Nelson or Snead, either. He was cordial to them but never was close to either man. He never grew close to any golfer, with the possible exceptions of Jackie Burke and Jimmy Demaret. For all the talk of my rivalry with Jack Nicklaus, at heart we truly like each other. I can't say the same for Ben Hogan and me."

I think we glorify the old guys around here too much. From my very limited experience they had many of the same traits as the modern player, only most of them did not get recorded in 24/7 news cycle.

For Hogan, playing the Seniors was probably akin to cheapening his name and legacy. Had the Senior Tour not been created, would golf have lost something tremendously valuable? No. We could do just as well without it.

I for one loved Watson's run last year at The British Open. I don't think that happens without a Senior Tour for him to play on.

I do agree with your point about the lawsuit. When you let lawyers run your business, nobody wins.

[/quote]

I don't really care if Palmer didn't like Hogan or vice-versa, or felt slighted by him. Or if anyone liked him. Hogan came from a tough school and was out there to kick asses, not be Arnie's or anyone's bosom buddy. He was tough, and protected HIS name, his brand and his private life it seems. He obviously loved the game. I recall a speech he gave before he died that moved a lot of people. No, I don't know him, never met him, but being a student of the game I'll stand by what I'd written about Hogan. I think Jackie Burke might have a different opinion from Arnie. Ken Venturi might have a similar opinion about Arnie as Hogan... but where does it get us? Nowhere.

Glorification. I think a whole lot gets glorified here too, but that doesn't change my point of view on my original post.

Watson. I loved his run too, and it was sickening to watch him let it slip away when mere feet from the hole, but the Senior Tour could go away and it wouldn't be a great loss. They'd have the Nationwide, Europe, Asia, Africa, mini tours and other events to play in... if they wanted. Their TV slots would be filled with more LPGA, Euro Tour, and Nationwide events.

.

[Tony Ristola]

dp.

[Mark Pearce]

I do agree with your point about the lawsuit. When you let lawyers run your business, nobody wins.

Oh yes we do......

[Mike Sweeney]

Hogan came from a tough school and was out there to kick asses, not be Arnie's or anyone's bosom buddy. He was tough, and protected HIS name, his brand and his private life it seems. He obviously loved the game. I recall a speech he gave before he died that moved a lot of people. No, I don't know him, never met him, but being a student of the game I'll stand by what I'd written about Hogan. I think Jackie Burke might have a different opinion from Arnie. Ken Venturi might have a similar opinion about Arnie as Hogan... but where does it get us? Nowhere.

Tony,

This sounds very similar to the defense of Tiger Woods up until Thanksgiving weekend. In 1984 there was no Nationwide and there were no overseas tour to really speak of and those seniors did not have the money for the most part to travel.

The start of this thread was the concept that Phil put himself above the rules and the game for his own benefit. In my opinion, he is no different than Hogan in being selfish. Maybe in different ways, but they are both selfish. We can argue all day about who started which charity first and get nowhere. Having spent time with the old seniors, I can just say they were no worse or better than today's professional golfer. They just played for less money with less media coverage.

I see the same things in college basketball today. We used to ride in vans and I really was not a pot smoker, but had a number of friends who did. It was college in the 1980's. Today, the kids fly private jets to games and if they get caught with a bong on a cell phone camera, they get suspended or tossed. Reality is the college kids today are the same in many ways but advanced in a number of ways too.

These Hogan, Crump, Woods legacies all get built up too much IMO, and Phil is not nearly the skunk that people portray him. He's a little smelly for sure, but I could play a round of golf with him and have a good day.


Mark,

Who won with the lawyers in charge? I honestly don't understand your point.

[Scott Warren]

Mike: Mark is a lawyer. he is saying there is a winner - the lawyers!

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike: Mark is a lawyer. he is saying there is a winner - the lawyers!

Thanks Scott. I should have figured!

Kelly,

Are you still pissed off that your Texas-bred son is getting smoked by a bunch of Catholic kids from Pennsylvania in basketball? 

[JSlonis]

Chuck Brown- Decision USGA/4-1/100. This decision, for the time being, only applies if invoked for the a competition played under USGA Rules. This is probably because the grandfathering of the PiNG Eye 2 has expired under the R&A settlement with Ping

Regardless, the players knew this was coming last year. The Tour would have published the condition prior to the tournamnet season starting. In other words, this situation required no sluething by the players.

Jamie- The USGA did not "change course mid steam" in implementing this rule. When it was announced, the manufacturers immediately began submitting groove designs that followed the letter of the rule but which produced more spin than traditional V grooves. The USGA then clarified the intent of the rule. All the manufacturers now produce conforming gtrooves.

Jim K.- IN 1983, Ping produced and sold a club with a new groove configuration without submitting it to the USGA for compliance testing. How did the USGA bring that situation on themselves?

For a club to qulaify for the exception it must have been manufactured before 1990.

Jim,

The following is a quote from Roger Cleveland in regard to the USGA ruling last year:


"Originally, the USGA gave us exact guidelines about the new grooves, but it didn't want to confine us to making only a V groove. So, in July 2009 we developed a groove that met their specifications and brought it to the USGA for approval. The USGA told us the intent of the rule was to reduce spin, and that while the new groove complied with the rules, it created too much spin. We told them that they gave us a rule, and we followed it. It took us about $300,000 to develop that groove, but the USGA said, "No."

Callaway is always going to design to the Nth degree of performance, otherwise somebody else is going to do it. That's what competition is about. But the USGA changed the rule again anyway. It's as if we're playing a football game and as we're about score a touchdown they moved the goal line and made the field 110 yards.

So we had to go back and develop another new groove, which made us a little bit late in getting the clubs to our tour players.

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 it."


I had the good fortune to meet Roger last year after this ruling went down and talked to him a couple of times about it.  To me, it was quite clear from his perspective that the initial guidelines were changed in the middle of the process.  If Callaway made a new wedge under the original guidlines laid down by the USGA and was then told it wasn't acceptable, how can you not say the USGA changed it's rule mid stream?

[Matt_Ward]

Here is a press statement from Ping on the matter ...

   PRESS RELEASE
 
 


February 1, 2010


In response to the on-going discussion and miscommunication relating to 2010 Groove Regulation and the use of PING EYE2 irons manufactured prior to April 1, 1990, PING Chairman & CEO John Solheim issued the following statement today:


“Over the last several weeks we’ve watched with great interest the impact of the PING EYE2 and its role in the USGA’s 2010 Groove Regulation. We’ve read and heard numerous inaccurate reports from various sources, including several PGA Tour Professionals, about the new groove regulation, specifically that “U” or “Square” grooves are “banned” as part of the regulation. As the USGA states on its website:


“A common misconception is that “V” shaped grooves will be required under the new specifications and that “U” shaped grooves will no longer be allowed.  This is not the case.” 


This misconception has contributed to PING EYE2 irons being characterized as “non-conforming” or “illegal” and has created a division among many of the players on the PGA Tour.


We’re thankful that the PGA Tour helped clarify this issue in a statement last weekend:

“Under the Rules of Golf and the 2010 Condition of Competition for Groove Specifications promulgated by the USGA, pre-1990 Ping Eye 2 irons are permitted for play and any player who uses them in PGA TOUR sanctioned events taking place in jurisdictions of the USGA is not in violation of the Rules of Golf; and

Because the use of pre-1990 Ping Eye 2 irons is permitted for play, public comments or criticisms characterizing their use as a violation of the Rules of Golf as promulgated by the USGA are inappropriate at best.”

Naturally, this entire episode takes us back more than 20 years when our company took a stand against both the USGA and PGA Tour over their attempts to ban PING EYE2 irons because of the grooves. In an effort to protect the interests of the millions of PING EYE2 owners who had purchased their clubs in good faith and for the good of the game, we negotiated an agreement with the USGA which “grandfathered” all PING EYE2 irons manufactured prior to April 1, 1990. 


In 1993, the PGA Tour agreed they “will not in the future adopt or attempt to adopt any separate PGA Tour rule which would prohibit the use of U-grooves on any golf club if such PGA Tour rule differed from a USGA rule.”


When the USGA proposed the New Groove Rule more than two years ago, we reminded them of their agreement relative to the PING EYE2 irons. At the time, I was vehemently against any new groove rule for a variety of reasons and advised both the 
 


USGA and PGA Tour in a letter dated July 31, 2007 that what is happening on the PGA Tour today was very much a possibility.


The recent statement from the PGA Tour and several PGA Tour players that they could invoke a “local rule” required us to remind the PGA Tour of the terms of the agreement which prohibits them from straying from a rule that “differed from a USGA rule.”


While I fully expect the PGA Tour to honor this agreement, I’m willing to discuss a workable solution to this matter that would benefit the game and respect the role innovation has played over the long history of golf.”

[Brent Hutto]

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.

All this from an organization which gets veto authority over every golf ball played in every round of golf in the world. Yet they won't change the ball that they think goes to far and would rather screw around the margins with totally unrelated parts of the game.

Idiots.

[Mike Hendren]

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.  

Let's face it - Mickelson's public personna is simply not that attractive to those of us who will call bullsh%t at the drop of a hat when we see it.  I have mistakenly confused that with the notion that he's not a good guy.  As if often the case with presidential races, I apparently picked the wrong guy.

Bogey

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()