Thanks for the leadership, Phil

[JC Jones]

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

This is a ridiculous statement.

JC -- Why?

Golf leadership in the Bobby Jones era: “Why did I call a penalty on myself when no one saw it? You might as well ask me why I didn’t rob a bank.”

Golf leadership in the Phil Mickelson era: “Someone left the bank vault open. It was a foolish thing to do, and I don’t agree with it. But you don’t expect me not to walk in and take my share, do you?”

Your attempt to analogize Phil Mickelson playing golf within the parameters and rules as set by the PGA Tour to robbing a bank because they left their vault door open is hilarious.

[Wade Whitehead]

Golf leadership in the Bobby Jones era: “Why did I call a penalty on myself when no one saw it? You might as well ask me why I didn’t rob a bank.”

Golf leadership in the Phil Mickelson era: “Someone left the bank vault open. It was a foolish thing to do, and I don’t agree with it. But you don’t expect me not to walk in and take my share, do you?”

Rick:

Can you provide a specific example of a time when Mr. Mickelson did not call a penalty on himself or when he acted without humility or a sense of responsibility for doing so?

WW

[jeffwarne]

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

[Phil_the_Author]

Rick,

Do you think that if Phil hadn't played them that the "issue" would be as large as it has become or as greatly discussed? Don't you think that Phil might possibly have set a leadership example by playing the clubs to prove the point? IF the clubs become 'de-legalized' as a result of this controversy, can't one point to Phil's use of them as the enrgizing factor to cause it?

[Rick Shefchik]

Glad I'm providing amusement for you, JC. There's a Brian Wilson song going through my head right now..."I guess I just wasn't made for these times."

WW --

You have completely mischaracterized my comparison of Jones and Mickelson. Of course I can't point to a time when Phil didn't call a penalty on himself. That's not what this is about, and if you'd read carefully, you'd know that's not what I'm saying.

As to my suppositions about Jones, Palmer and Nicklaus, my opinion is that they wouldn't put the Ping wedge in their bag. Your opinion obviously differs. We'll never know, but I'm basing my opinion on their reputation as sportsmen who believed wholeheartedly that the game was bigger than they were. If Jack or Arnie comes out this week in support of Phil, that obviously undercuts my opinion, but I still believe they would have thought differently during their days on tour.

Let me try one more analogy, and then I'm done, because clearly I'm yelling into a hurricane here.

Assume you are a senior employee at your place of work, an executive the rest of the company looks to for example. Your CEO comes to you and says, 'We've passed a new workplace rule, for the good of the company. Because of a technicality, you could get around this rule, but it would make a big difference to us if you'd adhere to it, and set an example for the rest of the company. They look up to you, and most will do as you do. This rule is important to us, and to the future of this company."

What would you do?

[Rick Shefchik]

Rick,

Do you think that if Phil hadn't played them that the "issue" would be as large as it has become or as greatly discussed? Don't you think that Phil might possibly have set a leadership example by playing the clubs to prove the point?

Phil,

No, I don't. But I could be wrong.

[jeffwarne]

Glad I'm providing amusement for you, JC. There's a Brian Wilson song going through my head right now..."I guess I just wasn't made for these times."

WW --

You have completely mischaracterized my comparison of Jones and Mickelson. Of course I can't point to a time when Phil didn't call a penalty on himself. That's not what this is about, and if you'd read carefully, you'd know that's not what I'm saying.

As to my suppositions about Jones, Palmer and Nicklaus, my opinion is that they wouldn't put the Ping wedge in their bag. Your opinion obviously differs. We'll never know, but I'm basing my opinion on their reputation as sportsmen who believed wholeheartedly that the game was bigger than they were. If Jack or Arnie comes out this week in support of Phil, that obviously undercuts my opinion, but I still believe they would have thought differently during their days on tour.

Let me try one more analogy, and then I'm done, because clearly I'm yelling into a hurricane here.

Assume you are a senior employee at your place of work, an executive the rest of the company looks to for example. Your CEO comes to you and says, 'We've passed a new workplace rule, for the good of the company. Because of a technicality, you could get around this rule, but it would make a big difference to us if you'd adhere to it, and set an example for the rest of the company. They look up to you, and most will do as you do. This rule is important to us, and to the future of this company."

What would you do?

Rick ,
What if I knew that because of position in the company, me exercising the loophole would draw enough attention to it that it would be eliminated due to the publicity I created?

[Pat Burke]

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 remember as a kid that Nicklaus was taking relief and dropped his ball which rolled in to a terrible lie.  It was close to being outside the 2 club lenths allowed before requiring a re drop.  Jack took out his putter to measure the 2 club lengths and the ball was just outside that distance.  He redropped into a very good lie.  I thought it was brilliant use of the rules to his advantage.  The PING clubs were grandfathered in as part of the lawsuit settlement years ago, AND it was discussed when the new rules were discussed.  
Lots of great college players from Phil's time played them, and have many of them kicking around.  I have two full sets with perfect grooves in my garage, because I believe they are the best clubs Ping ever made.
Phil's job, like it or not, is to be the best player in the world if he can.  He has been outspoken about the rule change all along, and by going back to the clubs he played in college (legally), he feels he can compete better, so be it.  It's his job.  Much like the long putter etc, it's not like these guys can't use the same thing if it is an advantage.  Legal is legal.

[Tom_Doak]

Don't you think that Phil might possibly have set a leadership example by playing the clubs to prove the point?

This is what Phil's camp is trying to say now.

Unfortunately, the point he is trying to prove is that his sponsor (Callaway) thinks the whole groove rule is insane, and that their competitor Ping's clubs should not be grandfathered in to give them an advantage.

If he was REALLY trying to be a leader, he would have NOT used the clubs, and then in both his press conference and his victory speech, faulted the Tour for allowing them to be used.

[Rick Shefchik]

Glad I'm providing amusement for you, JC. There's a Brian Wilson song going through my head right now..."I guess I just wasn't made for these times."

WW --

You have completely mischaracterized my comparison of Jones and Mickelson. Of course I can't point to a time when Phil didn't call a penalty on himself. That's not what this is about, and if you'd read carefully, you'd know that's not what I'm saying.

As to my suppositions about Jones, Palmer and Nicklaus, my opinion is that they wouldn't put the Ping wedge in their bag. Your opinion obviously differs. We'll never know, but I'm basing my opinion on their reputation as sportsmen who believed wholeheartedly that the game was bigger than they were. If Jack or Arnie comes out this week in support of Phil, that obviously undercuts my opinion, but I still believe they would have thought differently during their days on tour.

Let me try one more analogy, and then I'm done, because clearly I'm yelling into a hurricane here.

Assume you are a senior employee at your place of work, an executive the rest of the company looks to for example. Your CEO comes to you and says, 'We've passed a new workplace rule, for the good of the company. Because of a technicality, you could get around this rule, but it would make a big difference to us if you'd adhere to it, and set an example for the rest of the company. They look up to you, and most will do as you do. This rule is important to us, and to the future of this company."

What would you do?

Rick ,
What if I knew that because of position in the company, me exercising the loophole would draw enough attention to it that it would be eliminated due to the publicity I created?

Jeff, if you stated that was your intent, I'd take you at your word, and I'd consider that a legitmate way to address the situation.

I haven't heard Phil make that claim.

[Jeff Tang]

I have no problem with what Phil did. This is professional golf and people's careers with lots of money at stake. I see it as no different than any NFL, MLB, or NBA team knowing the rules and using them to their advantage when possible.  Not doing so would bring justifiable  criticism from the respective teams' fans.  If the rules specify that Phil can use the club then he should not have to make apologies to anyone.

[Tom_Doak]

Incidentally, in another rich conflict of interest, Larry Dorman wrote a glowing piece in the NY Times yesterday praising Phil for bringing this issue into the light of day.

That's the same Larry Dorman who quit the Times for a few years to be on Callaway's payroll.

[henrye]

Rick,

I like the Phil I see through the filtered media.  He's clearly a great player and has had some personal challenges with family of late that even his greatest detractors wouldn't wish on anyone.

Having said that, I agree with you that he is contravening the spirit of the rules.  Others seem to think that's no big deal - that a rule is a rule.  I don't like it.

[Jason Connor]

I was taught that one of the advantages of learning the rules was not just that it allowed me the satisfaction of playing by the rules, but also because knowing the rules brought with it some advantages.

I agree with Jim Kennedy that these guys get paid plenty of money to endorse clubs and they have to hear from their sponsor that 30 year old wedges beat 'the latest & greatest'.

I do find it ironic that Phil switched clubs shortly before a Ryder Cup in which he allegedly didn't have time to adjust and played poorly but that he isn't playing his sponsor's clubs now.

[RJ_Daley]

Did anyone note the change in measured words that Phil used in his Thurs., comments to Jim Grey, and his comments yesterday?  On Thurs., the word "slander" was not used by Phil.  Yesterday, his comments used the words "slander" to describe the remarks made against him by critics.  As I see it, not only has this become a player association - PGA and USGA rules committee thing, it has been thrown to the lawyers to feast off the sensationalism of the comments made by McCarren, and others. 

I don't know how people view the looming litigation on the slander and irresponsible remarks issue, as it relates to the 'spirit of the game'.  But, all this stuff is a full employment act for lawyers, IMHO. 

Also IMHO, the prohibition of square grooves rule should not have been imposed until they had all the bases covered regarding being able to foreclose any possibilities of the pre-1989 post '84 clubs or whatever the parameters are for the loophole Ping years.  The ruling bodies invited this s-storm via incompetent promulgation of consistent rules.  If you can't impose uniform rules in an absolute, don't impliment them, until you can cover that base! 

I'll side with Phil on this one.

[Mike Cirba]

I've been a big fan of Phil's since his AM days and he just dropped two notches in my book, legal or not.

After hearing Tom Watson's comments on Tiger the other day, I think the new gold standard question every tour pro should be asking themselves is "what would TW do?", and I'm not rererring to the one with 14 majors.

[Sean Leary]

I think the fact that Phil only put one of these wedges in the bag lends credence to the theory that he was trying to make a statement. I am sure that he did significant testing on spin with numerous wedges.

[Jim Sweeney]

Unbelievable how much misinformation is being bandied about in this thread. For example, the "loophole" everyone is referring to is clearly spelled out in the rule- no lawyerly digging or super-secret knowledge required. The conditon allowing the pre-1990 grooves applies to all pre-1990 clubs manufactured with grooves that conformed at the time, not just Pings. The Tour did not decide that certain grooves are "not part of the game." The new rule has nothing to do with the legality of square grooves- they always have been, are, and presumably always will be legal. The USGA knew exactly what it was doing when it revamped the groove rule, as did the PGA Tour when it decided to implement the rule as a condition of its competitions in 2010. Due to the two settlements of the Ping legal actions in 1988 and 1993 with the USGA and the Tour respectively, not grandfathering these clubs was not a possibility. However, no organization has ever proved a perfomance benefit using those older grooves. The new regulations were a response to the extra sharp/aggressive "spin milled" grooves developed over the past ten years or so, not those of twenty five years ago.

The new regs say in essence that in clubs with more than 25 deg. loft, square, U, box, whatever, must be designed so that the spin generated in tests stipulated by the USGA is the same as traditional V grooves. One can access all the research and notices about the grooves rule as well as the new condition itself at USGA.org

McCarron was clearly out of order in calling out Mickelson in the manner he did. He could have handles it in private, or at least expressed his reservations without calling out a fellow tour player. However, Phil missed a real chance here. By using clubs that conform to the new rules and playing well or winning, he could have set himself up as the poster boy for tour ethics, as opposed to, say, Daly. Now he is not only not that, he seems on the verge of suing a fellow tour member, and the distracton has apparently caused him to bomb out of this weekend's tournament.

[Richard Hetzel]

.....and I think it should be noted that even though Ping had a 23 year monopoly on Tour of being the only wedge with grooves that 'stopped' the ball from anywhere, they weren't being used in any appreciable amount.
 

GREAT point. Well said.

[BCrosby]

What Tom Doak said. Phil needs to show some leadership instead of picking at a scab in the rules.

BTW, Ping could make all this go away with a letter to the USGA. Their settlement can be modified with the stroke of a pen. After all, the carve-out was agreed to only because the USGA did not want to punish everyday players who had bought the clubs before April, 1990. No one at the time dreamed of a situation like this.

This is an embarrassment to the game. That's why this matters.

Bob

[Philippe Binette]

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 ?

[Tom_Doak]

What Tom Doak said. Phil needs to show some leadership instead of picking at a scab in the rules.

BTW, Ping could make all this go away with a letter to the USGA. Their settlement can be modified with the stroke of a pen. After all, the carve-out was agreed to only because the USGA did not want to punish everyday players who had bought the clubs before April, 1990. No one at the time dreamed of a situation like this.

This is an embarrassment to the game. That's why this matters.

Bob

Bob:

Thanks for the props.  And back at you -- Ping could easily make this go away, and they are not budging on it.  Their description of the "procedure" that would have to be followed in order to change the rule is a mind-boggling bunch of b.s., because as you say, they could just release the Tour to make a local rule against the clubs.  But they are not about to do that right now, with all the free publicity they're getting for their "superior" equipment.

This whole episode is about free publicity and about the equipment companies trying to make the average golfer think that the governing bodies are conspiring against them to make golf harder. 

[JohnH]

Sorry, not buying into the whole "Phil needs to be a leader" or "Phil needs to do this or that for the spirit of the game" ramble.  Phil doesn't "have" to do anything but follow the rules, which he has done.  What he "should" do is irrelevant.

[Jerry Kluger]

I think most of you remember a few years ago Phil was involved in a playoff at Torrey Pines and hit a tee shot into the junk and then played another ball which he hit in the fairway.  When he got up to where his first ball would be he told the marshalls not to look for the ball as he wanted to play his second ball from the fairway.  They didn't listen to him and before he could hit his shot they found his first ball.  His provisional ball was then no longer in play and the first ball was unplayable with no place to drop so he had to go back to the tee - you didn't hear a peep out of Phil - he followed the rule and went back and then went on to win the playoff.

Phil is a professional - it's his job - it's how he makes a living.  He plays by the rules and he is entitled to every advantage the rules allow - if you don't like it then change the rules. 

[jeffwarne]

This is an embarrassment to the game. That's why this matters.

Bob

What's an embarrassment to the game is trying to fix  what the game has become at the highest level by going after the "gouge" rather than the "bomb".
Ironically, PING created the whole problem by suing the USGA and winning years ago which took the teeth out of the USGA's desire/ability to curb the onset of undue technologically created length.