Mickelson, Harrington, Daly using PING wedges for grooves. Unfair advantage?

[Shanks A Million]

They mentioned his driver has 6 degrees of loft. Or maybe they said 6 degrees of separation from the fairway. He was striping that fairway wood pretty nice though!

No, it does indeed have just 6° of loft, or so they said. A quick look at his profile shows an FT-9 at 7.5°.

[normdamarine]

I think the point about this "cheating" "loophole" what ever you call it is the change in the grooves and has effected play and some knew this and were trying to get around it. Did anyone watch some of the shots that were flying out of the rough at Torrey? The fliers are back and the pros have been so use to being able to grab the ball out of the rough and are not use to it...

[RX Phoenix]

Try this simple analogy to clear this issue up: Your club holds it's Club Championship with rules banning the square grooves, one player breaks the rules, wins the Championship and then threatens to sue if the win isn't recognized. The Competition Committee decides they might lose the lawsuit or spend too much $$ pursuing it and therefore backs down from the conflict. Now . . . how are the members of the Club going to view that player, as just an intelligent guy seeing opportunity and seizing it, and admiring him for it? Or as a guy they wouldn't want to do business with?

Clearly the threat of a lawsuit by Ping is what is driving this and keeping the loophole open and Phil is hiding behind this threat in trying to get an advantage. However if Phil could use the new Callaway wedges this wouldn't be happening at all.

The difference between calling Phil a 'cheater' and saying that using the Pings is 'cheating' is a difference in that the 'cheating' could mean it is 'cheating the game' which has a different connotation. Meaning it is not technically cheating but a sidestepping of the integrity of the game or 'cheating the game'.

I've always seen Phil as a person of integrity, I'd guess he is doing this as a way to put pressure on the Callaway grooves issue, and it clearly has stressed him out and put him off his game.

[iacas]

Try this simple analogy to clear this issue up: Your club holds it's Club Championship with rules banning the square grooves, one player breaks the rules, wins the Championship and then threatens to sue if the win isn't recognized. The Competition Committee decides they might lose the lawsuit or spend too much $$ pursuing it and therefore backs down from the conflict. Now . . . how are the members of the Club going to view that player, as just an intelligent guy seeing opportunity and seizing it, and admiring him for it? Or as a guy they wouldn't want to do business with?

I think that's a terrible analogy. And square grooves aren't banned.

Clearly the threat of a lawsuit by Ping is what is driving this and keeping the loophole open and Phil is hiding behind this threat in trying to get an advantage.

That's not clear at all, no. Remember this is about 20-year-old clubs that are legally guaranteed to be approved for play.

[RX Phoenix]

It's an analogy (the banning of the grooves would be a local rule) to illustrate the issue of INTEGRITY, not meant to be taken literally. The bigger question here is about Phil and how other players are viewing him as well as the public, I know my opiinion of him has changed. Lee Westwood said it best, that under no circumstances would be be using this wedge even though he has many of them and I'd say most players would feel this way too.

[Shanks A Million]

Clearly the threat of a lawsuit by Ping is what is driving this and keeping the loophole open and Phil is hiding behind this threat in trying to get an advantage. However if Phil could use the new Callaway wedges this wouldn't be happening at all.

No, no, this has nothing to do with it, Ping isn't threatening lawsuit as far as I know. Everyone assumes the Ping lawsuit was over square grooves; it wasn't. It was because Karsten had built the clubs with grooves the maximum legal size, and he discovered that they were tearing the covers of balls up. So, he goes in and rounds the edges a bit, right?

Well, the problem was, this made the grooves wider than what was legally allowed. He argued that the vertical walls of the groove were the legal size, but the USGA said that the size limit was for the top of the groove, not the vertical wall. Karsten said that this was never made clear, and the logic dictates that the space between vertical groove walls was the measurement, not the width of the groove at its widest point. So, the USGA changed the rules to allow the measurement to be taken at some point on the apex of the curve, and decided that the Ping clubs that had already been sold were acceptable instead of forcing all those players to buy new clubs. The problem is that these clubs are now, basically clubs like any other made before January 1st, 2010, they should no longer conform. However, this lawsuit never said anything about a change in the rules, the agreement was that the grooves on the clubs were merely legal, and that's all. Now, you have these same clubs still declared legal because the court decision in 1990 didn't predict a change in the rules 20 years later.

[iacas]

It's an analogy

You said that already. It's a bad analogy. It makes no sense.

So, he goes in and rounds the edges a bit, right?

Yes. I've posted several links that detail that. RX should read them.

Now, you have these same clubs still declared legal because the court decision in 1990 didn't predict a change in the rules 20 years later.

There was no court decision. It didn't go to court. It was settled, so you have a

contract . PING just sent me this PR:

Source: PING Statement 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.”

[RX Phoenix]

Shanks, how would you resolve the issue? If Ping isn't going to cause a stir why would this loophole still be there and what is the way out? I hear what you are saying but the issue of Phil's integrity is still on the table.

BTW Karstens insistence that the measurement is on the walls is funny, do the walls bite the ball or is the bite at the apex?

Would you agree that Phil is doing this out of spite because Callaway is having a problem getting their grooves approved? If he is then he is losing sight of the bigger issue of the 'spirit of the game' IMO.

[Alex B]

It's an analogy (the banning of the grooves would be a local rule) to illustrate the issue of INTEGRITY, not meant to be taken literally.

Yeah, but — as Erik said — the analogy sucks.

Your club holds it's Club Championship with rules banning the square grooves, one player breaks the rules, wins the Championship and then threatens to sue if the win isn't recognized.

That isn’t close to what’s happening now. No one is breaking the rules — if anyone were, he’d be disqualified. There’s a loophole and players are taking advantage of it. What you’re really saying is that they’re breaking “the spirit of the rules”:

The difference between calling Phil a 'cheater' and saying that using the Pings is 'cheating' is a difference in that the 'cheating' could mean it is 'cheating the game' which has a different connotation. Meaning it is not technically cheating but a sidestepping of the integrity of the game or 'cheating the game'.

If X is “cheating the game,” then anyone who performs activity X is a “cheater of the game,” i.e., he “cheats the game.” If you don’t mean cheating — which is obviously a loaded word — then don’t say cheating. Besides, what does “cheating the game” or “the integrity of the game” actually mean? Let’s define these terms better before we employ them as arguments.

Clearly the threat of a lawsuit by Ping is what is driving this and keeping the loophole open and Phil is hiding behind this threat in trying to get an advantage. However if Phil could use the new Callaway wedges this wouldn't be happening at all.

“Clearly”? You give no evidence of any causal link between the potential lawsuit and Phil’s actions.

I've always seen Phil as a person of integrity, I'd guess he is doing this as a way to put pressure on the Callaway grooves issue, and it clearly has stressed him out and put him off his game.

Again, no causal link. He could easily have just been a little off his game last week and played mediocre. It’s funny that everyone always tries to explain a single lousy performance. You know that day when you just play sloppily and shoot five over your handicap? Well, the pros have those days, too.

The bigger question here is about Phil and how other players are viewing him as well as the public, I know my opiinion of him has changed. Lee Westwood said it best, that under no circumstances would be be using this wedge even though he has many of them and I'd say most players would feel this way too.

Great. Guess what? Phil isn’t playing for you. He’s not playing for Lee Westwood, he’s not playing for the PGA Tour or the USGA. He’s playing to win — and if he finds a club that gives him a slight advantage, and that club is legal for tournament use, and he feels no moral qualms about using that club that would worsen his play, he can and should play it.

EDIT: I know it's bad form to criticize without proposing a solution, so here's mine: do nothing. The issue will pass by once the season gets in full swing, and any major rules change will attract much attention. The media has paid so much attention to this matter only because of the lackluster tournaments and winners these first few weeks (Ben Crane, anyone?). Once the bigger venues — Pebble, the WGC, and finally the Masters — roll around, will anyone still be talking about grooves? Slap McCarron for a few K and move on.

[Shanks A Million]

There was no court decision. It didn't go to court. It was settled, so you have a

Did I type decision? I meant settlement. Sorry about the confusion.

And as to Karsten measuring the walls, it made sense actually. Where would you suggest measuring an infinite edge?

[RX Phoenix]

Alex B . . . the big picture still stands, Phil represents the Tour, who is paying Phil? The prize money comes from Companies who believe that golfers represent what they are trying to sell to the public . . . Integrity. The Tour has huge prize money because of this link, I follow the Tour partly because the golfers represent the best that sport has to offer, great sportsmanship, integrity, etc. Take that away and you take a large chunk of the appeal. To dismiss this big issue is missing the boat. To say Phil is just an independent contractor who doesn't need to pay any attention to the image of the Tour is really bad business perception. He should take this into account.

Still no one has addressed the point I made about Phil trying to spite the Tour about it's stand on the Callaway grooves, is this too way off the mark???

[Fourputt]

Did I type decision? I meant settlement. Sorry about the confusion.

How is it infinite? A radius has a finite beginning and a finite end point. I was a machinist for 33 years, and I machined radii on thousands of corners. There is nothing infinite about it. A .010 radius ends .010" from the straight wall of the groove. It's a pretty simple geometry problem.

[iacas]

Alex B . . . the big picture still stands, Phil represents the Tour, who is paying Phil? The prize money comes from Companies who believe that golfers represent what they are trying to sell to the public . . . Integrity.

RX, please stop posting in this thread until you can make some sense.

The prize money is awarded based on where a player finishes in the tournament. That's it. If they break a rule they're either penalized or DQed and the appropriate changes are made to their paycheck. Phil's not breaking the rule, and though I disagree with the bizarre tactics he's employed to make his point, it's not a question of "integrity" - not that it would affect his prize winnings anyway.

To dismiss this big issue is missing the boat.

I dare speak for everyone when I say that nobody knows what you're talking about. What big issue?

Still no one has addressed the point I made about Phil trying to spite the Tour about it's stand on the Callaway grooves, is this too way off the mark???

The PGA Tour's not taken a stand on any grooves, Callaway or otherwise, since 1993. They follow the USGA rules.

[Shanks A Million]

How is it infinite? A radius has a finite beginning and a finite end point. I was a machinist for 33 years, and I machined radii on thousands of corners. There is nothing infinite about it. A .010 radius ends .010" from the straight wall of the groove. It's a pretty simple geometry problem.

The USGA never indicated where on the radius of the curve the measurement was taken. Rounding over an edge on a legal groove was not seen by Karsten as a violation of the rules, if anything, it

decreased spin. The problem was, if you measured the absolute width of the curve, then the groove would have to be so narrow, that everyone would make sharper edges to get wider grooves. This was also a bad thing. The settlement was a good one, the USGA specified exactly where on the radius you measure (I believe it was 1/3rd of the way down from the face or something).

[jamo]

. I'm assuming the PGA TOUR might be able to enact a rule banning the Ping Eye2's

"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.”

This is what i was talking about when you said i was messing up the PGA/PGA TOUR/USGA. I thought maybe the TOUR could introduce a rule different from that of the USGA, but, that quote says they can't, thanks for clearing that up.

[iacas]

The USGA never indicated where on the radius of the curve the measurement was taken.

Yeah, because the USGA assumed the edge was where they'd measure. PING changed the true "edge" and that's what started all the trouble. "Infinite" is a bizarre and poor choice of words. The rounding wasn't so severe that it would make the groove "so narrow" - it created the grooves we had last year, including the Spin Milled Vokey wedges and whatever other types of still fairly sharp AND large grooves we had. 0.005" isn't really a very large radius...

[Leftygolfer]

I think did it more to get back at the USGA for the ruling against the new callaway clubs than anything. They developed grooves within the specs they said then said they were non-conforming clubs. I am sure that rubbed him the wrong way and this was a way.

[iacas]

I think did it more to get back at the USGA for the ruling against the new callaway clubs than anything. They developed grooves within the specs they said then said they were non-conforming clubs. I am sure that rubbed him the wrong way and this was a way.

Yeah, and we only have Callaway's side of that. Supposedly they conformed, but they were not approved. The USGA has that right, but I'd still be interested in the actual details and not just the one side of the story.