1990 Ping vs. USGA Lawsuit

[indacup]

This is off-topic, so I'll keep it short. Obviously I was referring to that, I know what went down, and I lost respect for Ping because of it. I thought they handled it poorly.

LOL...How come the subject is NOT off topic when you bring it up...but is deemed "off topic" when someone points out you're wrong?

He is perfectly right...The USGA had previously approved those grooves and then tried to reverse it. What PING did was protect themselves as well as all the other manufacturers with similar grooves from thousands, f not millions of dollars in losses. What PING did then was absolutely the right thing to do for them and the industry. The USGA, by and large has lost the concept of what they were put in place to do..... Now, many heads are deemed illegal, are not just do to performance issues...but now due to vague cosmetic violations...based on "interpretations" not defined guidelines...I know of heads that were "pre-approved" when they went into production, but later found non-conforming based on insipid issues such as visability of certain parts of the head at address...or bore placement in relation to the shape of the crown...etc. Incidentally, I have seen the USGA deem some heads illegal that were manufactured by smaller companies... the smaller companies challenged and lost...but when one of the bigger companies came out with the exact same design and challenged, they won....apparently the USGA bases many decisions based on money....at times you must wonder if integrity or even common sense plays a major part in their decision making process.

[Jay-Bird]

LOL...How come the subject is NOT off topic when you bring it up...but is deemed "off topic" when someone points out you're wrong?

Exactly. Ping was going to "win" the sqaure-grooves case in court, but to allow the USGA to save face and not take a big hit from the FED, they settled out of court. If the case would've been ruled on by a court, and the USGA would've been found guilty of violating anti-trust laws it would have been terrible for them.

Interesting that Iacas lost respect for Ping, when Ping was in the right. But he's like theSandtrap's poster boy for Titleist. Titleist has had it's share of mishaps...(The illegal Professional series balls pre-ProV1, the replica/copy of Bridgestone and Callaway balls (the ProV1) etc.) I respect Iacas' opinion, and I believe he's a very knowlegable golfer. I also think he's done a phenomenal job with this website, but lately everything he posted has been negative... Anyway, thanks for backing me up on this one, indacup. I'm sending som invaluable reputation points your way!

[indacup]

Jay-Bird....

No problem...and I agree with everything you've said...I think Iacas is very good and is doing a great job...especially with the forum...and as we all know a forum is described in Websters Dictionary as:

A medium of open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper or a radio or television program.

I know I have changed my stance many times, listening to others in forums such as this....

[iacas]

LOL...How come the subject is NOT off topic when you bring it up...but is deemed "off topic" when someone points out you're wrong?

The pedant in me wants to clarify two things:

1) Nobody pointed out that I was wrong. Nothing I said was "wrong." 2) I didn't bring it up. "Ping respects the game over greed and profit" brought it up. In my opinion, the way Ping handled the groove thing was not about "respecting the game."

What PING did then was absolutely the right thing to do for them and the industry.

I'm glad you have an opinion. I will point out, however, that there's a difference between what's legally "right" and what's perhaps "better" or "morally right."

If you don't mind, I'll skip your "the USGA sucks" section...

Ping was going to "win" the sqaure-grooves case in court, but to allow the USGA to save face and not take a big hit from the FED, they settled out of court.

Ping never had to file the lawsuit to begin with. The end result was that their old clubs were grandfathered in but they had to change their grooves on new clubs to conform. The USGA agreed to tell white lies about the effectiveness of the grooves.

If the case would've been ruled on by a court, and the USGA would've been found guilty of violating anti-trust laws it would have been terrible for them.

That was Ping's claim. I think it was highly unlikely that they'd have been found to have violated anti-trust laws. The USGA wanted to settle because, even had they been victorious in the lawsuit, it undermined their authority and would have cost tens of millions of dollars just in legal fees. Money the USGA felt was better spent on growing the game of golf, running national championships, etc.

In the end it's not like Ping didn't have to change anything. They did. They had to change their grooves. I lost respect for Ping for several reasons. They could have said "yeah, our grooves are pretty aggressive, so for the good of the game we'll bite the bullet a bit on this one and go along." They could have done what they ended up settling to do without so much as a peep. And if they didn't want to be silent about it, they could have had talks with the USGA and reached a similar settlement without making a big, blow-hard spectacle of the thing. The lawsuit was marketing - great stuff for Ping. "Look at us, the USGA says our clubs are so great they should be banned!" Turns out they were, and Ping had to change them. The USGA's error? Not involving the clubmakers earlier in the process - as they did with the recent groove rule change. Instead, they just announced it rather suddenly.

Interesting that Iacas lost respect for Ping, when Ping was in the right.

You keep saying that like it's fact, but it's not. You might think Ping would have won, but others don't.

But he's like theSandtrap's poster boy for Titleist. Titleist has had it's share of mishaps...(The illegal Professional series balls pre-ProV1, the replica/copy of Bridgestone and Callaway balls (the ProV1) etc.)

I don't care for the insults, particularly when they're based on such thin evidence. So knock it off.

Simple fact for you: the Callaway lawsuit - which is based on patents the US Patent Office ruled invalid - is based on a small part of the manufacturing process . They're not "replicas" and it's gross mis-representation of fact to pretend it is.

[Jay-Bird]

The pedant in me wants to clarify two things:

OK, I was speaking in hyperbole. Relax. I apologise for the poster-"boy" comment, that was (although in jest) out of line. I didn't have time to dissect every individual comment, I walked 27 today.