Mickelson & his Ping Eye2 Wedges (topics merged)

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='mat562' date='27 January 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1264621639' post='2207890']
[quote name='mk920' date='27 January 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1264618487' post='2207781']
Hmmmm.... I see other OEM's challange the USGA in the not to distant future. If Ping eye 2's are legal for play then I see other OEM's challanging the USGA in court. [/quote]

I think that scenario is unlikely.

Solheim's contention was always that the USGA and R&A acted in a way that was discriminatory towards his brand of clubs [i]alone[/i], in that both organisations deemed the Eye 2 grooves to be non-conforming under existing regulations and thus illegal for sanctioned play with immediate effect. The ruling bodies didn't ban square grooves [i]per se[/i]; they interpreted one element of the then-existing rule on groove width and spacing in such a way that it singled out Ping clubs as having grooves that were too wide and which were too close together on the face because of the way that they were manufactured. Solheim maintained that the issue arose simply because both bodies chose to ignore accepted engineering principles in the way that they measured the dimensions of the offending grooves amd that they were motivated to do so as a result of the undesirable (as the USGA and R&A saw it) performance-related side effects of his particularly effective groove designs.

The recent changes will be applied [i]carte blanche[/i] to all clubs manufactured after a specified date, by all manufacturers, and are planned to be introduced over a protracted length of time: fifteen years in the case of clubs used by the vast majority of the golfing population. All major manufacturers have been consulted - indeed many have assisted in the official research and testing process - and the new ruling applies equally to all OEMs and clubs in a way that isn't prejudicial towards any one brand or model of club.

I'm no lawyer, but in my view any manufacturer with a mind to claim that the new regulations are unfair, or are going to have a detrimental effect upon their sales or their ability to do business is going to have a very tough time making a persuasive case in the way that Karsten Solheim was able to do. I honestly don't think they've got a case.

As a golfer, I'm opposed to the new rule, and I don't think it will effectively tackle the areas that it's designed to tackle. My own belief is that in five to ten years time further measures will have to be taken - probably including a rollback of ball performance; in my view what should have been done in the first place - and that this ruling will achieve very little other than to annoy people like me; people who have got sets of perfectly good irons in their possession which they will be unable to use in a few years' time simply because someone in authority arbitrarily decided that the way that a small percentage of the already tiny percentage of golfers that constitutes the game's elite players choose to play golf isn't to their liking.

As far as being able to use my old Nikes or Eye 2s in competition when I'm old and grey goes though, I'm not holding out much hope that Titleist or Ping's version of Lionel Hutz is going to sort things out and get the groove ruling overturned.
[/quote]
I agree that there are no grounds for a lawsuit, but, and this is a huge but (not to be confused with a huge butt) I wondered about the reports that Phil's irons were deemed non-conforming even though they conformed to the rules, they spun too much. I don't know if it is true, but the USGA came out with their memo about the rule's intent.

I would think that in the absence of a spec on spin, and the seemingly arbitrary nature of the rule (in that light) that this would invite a lawsuit.

[bermuda]

This issue reminds me of auto racing, where engine and chassis builders as well as tech officials agree that it's basically the duty of engine and chassis builders to exploit the gray areas in the rules. And the Ping Eye2 issue isn't even a gray area. It's right there in legal print that the clubs are conforming in perpetuity.

Years ago at a local track, rules in a pure stock class required OEM engine parts. A local engine builder built a 302 CID Chevrolet engine, which caught people off guard because they didn't know Chevrolet had ever built a 302 (327 block, 283 heads and crank). He also put a GM aluminum intake on it. His competitors cried foul, that the rules said you had to use an iron intake. He replied that the rules simply said OEM parts, and they could go buy the same intake at the same downtown Chevy dealer he bought it from.

The rules were rewritten to specify iron intakes and specific part numbers.

But the USGA can't rewrite this rule to ban Ping because of the previous agreement.

[stage1350]

Saying that Ping Eye 2 is not in the spirit of the rules is about the equivalent of pissing and moaning because bomb and gouge doesn't use the line that the architect intended.

If it's legal, they can play them. Period.

[mat562]

The testing procedures in use on the tours certainly sound shambolic, and the 'we reserve the right to do whatever we like' attitudes of the R&A and USGA certainly are unreasonable. What more evidence is necessary to show that the rule is unworkable than the necessity to implement a clause that essentially says "[i]We're so lacking in confidence that the rule will achieve what it's intended to achieve that we will have the final say on what passes and what doesn't, outside of the normal scheme of things and independent of what the measurements say (via our patently unreliable methods of testing) simply because we can't be sure that we'll get what we want if we leave it to a simple measurement"?[/i] It's all laughably inept, and the fact that they're seemingly unable to devise a testing method that gives the same result twice in a row, supposedly after years of careful and deliberate research, is pathetic.

You're quite right that the above proviso may be the only way that a manufacturer could raise an issue with the whole process. Assuming that an OEM submitted a groove design that passed the dimensional test only to find that the club was vetoed because of an arbitrary decision that it[i] still[/i] had too much spin, we'd potentially be back in a situation where the manufacturer could do a Solheim and make a cogent argument that the R&A or USGA were being unreasonable and acting in a discriminatory manner towards a particular manufacturer once again. As for challenging the validity of the decision to change the rules surrounding groove dimensions alone, I think there's little prospect for it ever happening.

Time will tell, and it all makes you wonder why they didn't just change the ball really.

[anders]

[quote name='hogan64' date='25 January 2010 - 07:23 PM' timestamp='1264465394' post='2203853']
Total bush league move. How can any of them feel good about this? What if Phil wins the Masters with a Ping wedge? How nice for him. This is totally contradictory to the spirit of the game. No different than blatantly cheating IMO. Loopholes and lawyers, yuck. Golf is starting to smell like all the other pro sports. Too bad.


[/quote]

Very very good point indeed! It's not dishonest but it's sailing so close to the wind!

[mk920]

Well said Mat562~~~

[setter02]

[quote name='CasualLie' date='26 January 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1264543283' post='2205833']
Aside from personal ethics, if PM games the old Ping wedge then he is clearly showing there are shots he cannot hit with the new rules as well as he can with the old rules. He's saying he's not skilled enough to hit certain shots the way he likes with the new wedges. If the USGAs intent was to toughen up the game then they got it right by PM's actions, unfortunately they also got it wrong with the loophole.

It's really easy to say PM is within his right and the rules to do this so no one should complain. But what if he spun a bunker shot with enough zip to back the ball into the hole on the 72nd hole at Augusta for a winning birdie using the old Ping? No one is going to be up in arms about that? While on the one hand its a nice example of thumbing your nose at the USGA, but it only looks nice when someone else does it. Personally, I wouldn't want that on my resume.
[/quote]

That's right, without the grooves, Phil has no game what so ever. Maybe he should just quit the Tour now and save some face, would that make sense to you? Smarten up!

As for spinning the ball back out of a bunker on the 72nd hole at Augusta to win the Masters, I don't care what wedge is on your hands, if you were able to pull that shot off, then I will applaud an amazing shot and congratulate the winner.

[BWEISS4157]

Watched the Mickelson press conference today.

He was very adamant about his displeasure with the rule change, but said he will abide by it.

He also said that he will be playing one Ping Eye2 wedge (a 60 degree bent to 64 with some work done to the sole).
His rationale was that the change in the grooves really only affects the tops of the wedge face and that's where his 64 mostly hits. He said that he'll stick with the 60 degree wedge from Callaway but their 64 degree wedge with the "v" grooves wasn't as productive as the Eye2 which is why he had one bent to 64. He also sad that because he's typically a high spin player (off the face), he's been playing a lesser aggressive groove than the new standards in all his irons for years. However, he said with the new grooves and the new Tour i(z) ball he actually has more spin than last year.

He also mentioned that with the new ball and swing speed his driver has a little less than 6 DEGREES OF LOFT! FYI, last year it was around 7.5. He also talked about how he has turned a weakness (distance and dispersion of drives) into a strength (significant longer and hitting a lot of fairways, with misses slightly off the fairway).

We'll see how all of this plays out tomorrow.

He also made a point at the beginning of the press conference (before the questions even started) that he would not be talking about the Tiger saga. He mentioned the he and Tiger are "friends" and it would violate their friendship if he spoke of it. He mentioned that the tour needs him back, but right now he's taking care of what's most important...his family. He also said that he has spoken with a member of the Woods family (not specifically Tiger).

[OnOff]

[quote name='BWEISS4157' date='27 January 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1264634695' post='2208333']
Watched the Mickelson press conference today.

He was very adamant about his displeasure with the rule change, but said he will abide by it.

He also said that he will be playing one Ping Eye2 wedge (a 60 degree bent to 64 with some work done to the sole).
His rationale was that the change in the grooves really only affects the tops of the wedge face and that's where his 64 mostly hits. He said that he'll stick with the 60 degree wedge from Callaway but their 64 degree wedge with the "v" grooves wasn't as productive as the Eye2 which is why he had one bent to 64. He also sad that because he's typically a high spin player (off the face), he's been playing a lesser aggressive groove than the new standards in all his irons for years. However, he said with the new grooves and the new Tour i(z) ball he actually has more spin than last year.

He also mentioned that with the new ball and swing speed his driver has a little less than 6 DEGREES OF LOFT! FYI, last year it was around 7.5. He also talked about how he has turned a weakness (distance and dispersion of drives) into a strength (significant longer and hitting a lot of fairways, with misses slightly off the fairway).

We'll see how all of this plays out tomorrow.

He also made a point at the beginning of the press conference (before the questions even started) that he would not be talking about the Tiger saga. He mentioned the he and Tiger are "friends" and it would violate their friendship if he spoke of it. He mentioned that the tour needs him back, but right now he's taking care of what's most important...his family. He also said that he has spoken with a member of the Woods family (not specifically Tiger).
[/quote]

I saw the press conference and you did a nice job summarizing it.

[Scully13]

The question that I need answered: If Phil, "Mr. Callaway", is using Eye2 square grooved wedges, what is preventing every Tom, Dick or Harry on the PGA tour from putting one or several into their bags week in week out?

Would Taylor Made be so upset that their top players decided to play Ping wedges instead of Rac wedges? What's Weirsey putting with these days? Surely not a KIA MA or a Rossa. It's a Titleist Scotty Cameron.

[stage1350]

I hope each major is won with vintage Ping Eye 2 wedges just so that the players can tell the USGA to lick their collective sweaty choades.

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='gone_golfing' date='27 January 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1264635813' post='2208395']
The question that I need answered: If Phil, "Mr. Callaway", is using Eye2 square grooved wedges, what is preventing every Tom, Dick or Harry on the PGA tour from putting one or several into their bags week in week out?[/quote] Nothing. Except maybe their contracts.

[quote]
Would Taylor Made be so upset that their top players decided to play Ping wedges instead of Rac wedges? What's Weirsey putting with these days? Surely not a KIA MA or a Rossa. It's a Titleist Scotty Cameron.
[/quote]
Yes, TaylorMade would be upset, as I am sure Callaway is about Phil... but, unless they have it in the contract, their top players can play what they want, including Ping wedges.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='gone_golfing' date='27 January 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1264635813' post='2208395']
[b]The question that I need answered: If Phil, "Mr. Callaway", is using Eye2 square grooved wedges, what is preventing every Tom, Dick or Harry on the PGA tour from putting one or several into their bags week in week out?[/b]

Would Taylor Made be so upset that their top players decided to play Ping wedges instead of Rac wedges? What's Weirsey putting with these days? Surely not a KIA MA or a Rossa. It's a Titleist Scotty Cameron.
[/quote]

Hopefully, nothing.

If Phil gets them, everybody who wants one does.

Otherwise it is cheating.

Phil would have to draw the line there, I would think.

If Ping told some player, "sorry, we don't have one for you"

Then it is cheating.

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='bscinstnct' date='27 January 2010 - 07:26 PM' timestamp='1264638389' post='2208480']
[quote name='gone_golfing' date='27 January 2010 - 06:43 PM' timestamp='1264635813' post='2208395']
[b]The question that I need answered: If Phil, "Mr. Callaway", is using Eye2 square grooved wedges, what is preventing every Tom, Dick or Harry on the PGA tour from putting one or several into their bags week in week out?[/b]

Would Taylor Made be so upset that their top players decided to play Ping wedges instead of Rac wedges? What's Weirsey putting with these days? Surely not a KIA MA or a Rossa. It's a Titleist Scotty Cameron.
[/quote]

Hopefully, nothing.

If Phil gets them, everybody who wants one does.

Otherwise it is cheating.

Phil would have to draw the line there, I would think.

If Ping told some player, "sorry, we don't have one for you"

Then it is cheating.
[/quote]
Ping will tell EVERY player "sorry, we don't have one for you." Phil didn't get them from Ping. Every player is free to look for them or find them in their garage just like Phil and Daly have. If I am not mistaken, Ping's reserve had been sold out some time ago. They did have a reserve for staff players if I recall, but I think those are also gone.

In any case, was it cheating when TaylorMade's y-cutter grooves were initially available only to TM staffers? Ot when the Rac Bat-Wing blades were introduced they were one off sets that only went to TM staffers?

Interesting...

[anth]

Here is my issue with Phil's actions (and anyone else using the PING wedge).

Why is he using it? Because he clearly thinks it gives him some sort of an advantage.

Is it legal to use it? Clearly it is and there is nothing to stop anyone from playing the PING?

Is it right to use it? No it is not. And here is why.

Firstly, because something is legal, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is right from what I'll call a moral point of view. (Morality is not really the issue because we're talking about a game, but you know what I mean).

There are places in the world where women are stoned to death for adultery. The laws in these lands protect those that commit these acts. Legally, they are acceptable. But is it right? Of course it's not.

There are other places where citizens are killed or jailed for speaking out against the ruling power. Again, legal within that system, but we would all agree that it is wrong.

The fact that the PING wedge is legal, does not make it right. It just makes it legal.

I'm sorry for using the extreme examples but I just wanted to explain my argument. It doesn't really matter at the end of the day because it is just a game. But please come up with another reason as to why it's acceptable other than the USGA deemed it as legal, because if the PING is tested then we all know it doesn't pass.

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='anth' date='27 January 2010 - 07:52 PM' timestamp='1264639925' post='2208543']
Here is my issue with Phil's actions (and anyone else using the PING wedge).

Why is he using it? Because he clearly thinks it gives him some sort of an advantage.

Is it legal to use it? Clearly it is and there is nothing to stop anyone from playing the PING?

Is it right to use it? No it is not. And here is why.

Firstly, because something is legal, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is right from what I'll call a moral point of view. (Morality is not really the issue because we're talking about a game, but you know what I mean).

There are places in the world where women are stoned to death for adultery. The laws in these lands protect those that commit these acts. Legally, they are acceptable. But is it right? Of course it's not.

There are other places where citizens are killed or jailed for speaking out against the ruling power. Again, legal within that system, but we would all agree that it is wrong.

The fact that the PING wedge is legal, does not make it right. It just makes it legal.

I'm sorry for using the extreme examples but I just wanted to explain my argument. It doesn't really matter at the end of the day because it is just a game. But please come up with another reason as to why it's acceptable other than the USGA deemed it as legal, because if the PING is tested then we all know it doesn't pass.
[/quote]
So, if a legal piece of equipment gives a player an advantage then he has an ethical obligation not to use it?

Your analogies are flawed in any case. For starters, you assume we all agree that stoning women for adultery is morally wrong.

[anth]

Headonastick,

To you first question, if that piece of equipment does not conform, then yes.

To your second question, you may not agree with my example (highly unlikely) but in life there are things that are right and things that are wrong, regardless of what the law says. In most cases the law is in line with what we consider to be right and wrong, in some (extreme) cases, it is not. I only used these examples because they were cases where the law does not agree with what we consider to be right and wrong.

[307golf]

Have they looked into the Ping wedges to see if they actually produce an advantage? IOW, improved spin rates from the rough with modern balls... It doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to quantify.

Just because a couple tour pro's 'think' they are an advantage doesn't make it true.

[anth]

Pretty sure the PING wedges have square grooves, which are no longer allowed. I'm not certain, perhaps someone can confirm. FWIW, this is what Phil said in his press conference:

[i]And I feel like the Eye-2 grooves are not legal, or don’t conform, but they are approved for play[/i]

[Corey_sulliv21]

Totally legal...but I'm not a fan of the move.

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='anth' date='27 January 2010 - 08:12 PM' timestamp='1264641120' post='2208595']
Headonastick,

To you first question, if that piece of equipment does not conform, then yes.[/quote]

The wedges do conform by specific rule. So that's the end of the discussion, right?

[quote]To your second question, you may not agree with my example (highly unlikely) but in life there are things that are right and things that are wrong, regardless of what the law says. In most cases the law is in line with what we consider to be right and wrong, in some (extreme) cases, it is not. I only used these examples because they were cases where the law does not agree with what we consider to be right and wrong.
[/quote]

You realize that we are discussing a game, and games are defined by their rules. Golf is a game with [i]very[/i] precise rules - players shouldn't be expected to make up their own rules.

I'll also point out, again, your examples are only valid to you because you assume that all people agree about what is right and wrong.

[quote name='anth' date='27 January 2010 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1264642190' post='2208626']
Pretty sure the PING wedges have square grooves, which are no longer allowed. I'm not certain, perhaps someone can confirm. FWIW, this is what Phil said in his press conference:

[i]And I feel like the Eye-2 grooves are not legal, or don’t conform, but they are approved for play[/i]
[/quote]

Square grooves are not prohibited.

What are your feelings about Phil's wedges that conformed to the written rule but were subsequently put on the non-conforming? Should Phil be disqualified if he chose to use them anyway because they do in fact, conform to the specs as defined by the USGA?

[anth]

Then pick some examples that are valid to you. The examples themselves don't matter. The argument is what matters. Is there nothing that you think is plainly right or plainly wrong, regardless of law?

The wedges actually do [b]not[/b] conform. Hence there is a [u]specific rule that allows them[/u]. The fact that this rule is in existence proves this.

All clubs submitted for testing either pass or fail. I don't understand the technical aspects of the tesing, but if the PINGs were tested, would they pass or fail?

But we're just going to go back and forth all day on this so we'll have to agree to disagree.

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='anth' date='27 January 2010 - 08:45 PM' timestamp='1264643102' post='2208662']
Then pick some examples that are valid to you. The examples themselves don't matter. The argument is what matters. Is there nothing that you think is plainly right or plainly wrong, regardless of law?

The wedges actually do [b]not[/b] conform. Hence there is a [u]specific rule that allows them[/u]. The fact that this rule is in existence proves this.

All clubs submitted for testing either pass or fail. I don't understand the technical aspects of the tesing, but if the PINGs were tested, would they pass or fail?

But we're just going to go back and forth all day on this so we'll have to agree to disagree.
[/quote]
Conforming clubs are ones blessed by the rule making bodies. Simple as that.

Are the players allowed to disregard or change all of the rules they find objectionable - like playing from an old divot - or just this one? Or do they play by the rules as handed down by the rule making bodies?

Is this golf or Calvin-Ball?

[anth]

Choosing not to play a PING wedge is not changing, breaking or disregarding a rule, just like playing with 13 clubs isn't but 15 clubs is - can you see the difference?

What is Calvin-Ball? I don't get it. Sorry.

[Towelieeee]

[quote]Is this golf or Calvin-Ball? [/quote]

that was simply an awesome way to describe it

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='anth' date='27 January 2010 - 09:00 PM' timestamp='1264644044' post='2208692']
Choosing not to play a PING wedge is not changing, breaking or disregarding a rule, just like playing with 13 clubs isn't but 15 clubs is - can you see the difference?

What is Calvin-Ball? I don't get it. Sorry.
[/quote]
Not playing by the rules is not playing by the rules. The rules allow the wedges. Not playing them because of some pseudo-ethical dilemma is disregarding the rule that allows them.


[attachment=530174:calvinball.jpg]

[i](sorry... I didn't notice you were from Australia )[/i]

[Cally UK]

I really don't get the issue here. The Ping wedges are legal, forget the current groove rule, these were classed legal decades ago!!!! Every other player in the field is within their rights to put them into play.

The real issue is why the governing bodies didn't change the ball!

On another note to even comment on women being stoned to death for adultery etc is laughable - golf is a sport, this issue should not be mentioned in the same breath!!!!!!!

[anth]

Ha! That's funny.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. You believe the lawmakers have made it legal, therefore it's within the rules.

I believe that the club fails the test applied to determine conformity, and therefore should be banned. There is nothing pseudo about that, and it kind of makes a mockery of even having the test in the first place.

[anth]

[quote name='Cally UK' date='28 January 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1264644963' post='2208727']

On another note to even comment on women being stoned to death for adultery etc is laughable - golf is a sport, this issue should not be mentioned in the same breath!!!!!!!
[/quote]

I'm sorry, did you miss the part where I wrote this:

I'm sorry for using the extreme examples but I just wanted to explain my argument. It doesn't really matter at the end of the day because it is just a game.

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='anth' date='27 January 2010 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1264644990' post='2208729']
Ha! That's funny.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. You believe the lawmakers have made it legal, therefore it's within the rules.

I believe that the club fails the test applied to determine conformity, and therefore should be banned. There is nothing pseudo about that, and it kind of makes a mockery of even having the test in the first place.
[/quote]
How do you feel about the fact that ams are allowed to play non-conforming clubs until 2024?