Mickelson & his Ping Eye2 Wedges (topics merged)

[hogan64]

[quote name='flop2river' date='28 January 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1264727189' post='2210854']
LOL Karsten Solheim is grinning in his grave as Dean Beaman grits his teeth... Karsten's legacy lives on Hooooray... A guy who revolutionized the game as he did deserves it. [b]The Anser and the Eye2[/b] did more for the game than any piece of equipment...hence the most copied in golf today... I think it is great...looking on Ebay for some as we speak and I don't need them for a few years...
[/quote]


I would have to say Ti drivers and steroid injected golf balls trump the Anser and Eye2 in tech based game changing leaps.

[born4golf77]

i am fine with the clubs being conforming - that is the beauty of the legal system when they actually get it right, if karsten was still around he probably would have challenged this condition of competition as well -

i am sure the wedges produce more spin than the conforming wedges currently especially out of the rough and inside 50yds where it matters most anyway- all the independent studies showed out of the fairway there is no big difference until inside 50yds or so

anyway my question for the rules experts is this - if you have an eye 2 club that is legal and the grooves are worn out and you re-groove it with the original groove pattern (u-groove pattern), is it still grandfathered in or would it have to be re-grooved to the new rule? if so then they could just find old wedges and continually re-groove them back to original

also as a side note, the first U-groove eye2's had super sharp grooves that tore up old balata balls so they rounded the edges later on. very few of the super sharp edged ones ever show up and even less in good shape

btw i would use them and not think twice. they are legal and if you think they will help you then why not- it is not dishonest to do something legal imo

[MadGolfer76]

So, does this mean that Tiger will be stamping a Nike logo on Ping wedges now too?

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='born4golf77' date='28 January 2010 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1264732041' post='2211031']
i am fine with the clubs being conforming - that is the beauty of the legal system when they actually get it right, if karsten was still around he probably would have challenged this condition of competition as well -

i am sure the wedges produce more spin than the conforming wedges currently especially out of the rough and inside 50yds where it matters most anyway- all the independent studies showed out of the fairway there is no big difference until inside 50yds or so

anyway my question for the rules experts is this - if you have an eye 2 club that is legal and the grooves are worn out and you re-groove it with the original groove pattern (u-groove pattern), is it still grandfathered in or would it have to be re-grooved to the new rule? if so then they could just find old wedges and continually re-groove them back to original

also as a side note, the first U-groove eye2's had super sharp grooves that tore up old balata balls so they rounded the edges later on. very few of the super sharp edged ones ever show up and even less in good shape

btw i would use them and not think twice. they are legal and if you think they will help you then why not- it is not dishonest to do something legal imo
[/quote]
You may not re-groove the clubs. Re-grooving makes them non-conforming.

See: http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/337944-groove-sharpeningrefinishing/1rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[app10]

I saw the Cleveland Golf explanation of re-grooving / sharpening rendering a club non-conforming. Is there a specific USGA rule or interpretation that states this? I have been looking for it.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='app10' date='29 January 2010 - 12:21 AM' timestamp='1264742515' post='2211400']
I saw the Cleveland Golf explanation of re-grooving / sharpening rendering a club non-conforming. Is there a specific USGA rule or interpretation that states this? I have been looking for it.
[/quote]


I'd be curious to see this too. I can't understand the logic of rejecting a club if it is simply brought back up to original specs.

[app10]

For anyone saying that Ping Eye2 use is "morally wrong", I do accept the argument that just because something is legal does not make it right. However, we base our moral judgments on an independent standard of right and wrong (e.g. human rights in the case of stoning or torturing people, etc). What is the independent "moral" standard that makes it wrong to use Ping Eye2? That they offer an "unfair advantage"? Not really. Not anymore than many other technologies. That they violate the "spirit of the game"? Maybe, but I sure hope that if you believe this, you are not playing urethane balls or titanium drivers (or, heaven forbid, using one of those ghastly long putters).

No, I think the source of discomfort for some of you is that the Ping Eye2 in particular has a different status in the rules, which raises two issues:

1) Not the spirit of the game, but the *motivation* behind the new rules: The USGA has declared from on high that thou dost spin the ball too much, and They will not tolerate grooves that enable it. So you might consider it's "morally wrong" because either (a) you agree with the USGA's motivation and have internalized it or (b) you might disagree with the USGA, but darn it, it's wrong to oppose Their motivations, however strange they may seem to us mortals. (Thou shalt not take the USGA's preferences in vain).

2) Maybe the Ping Eye2 legality offends your sense of equality among club manufacturers. Not that Ping is actually selling any more of these, but that they are getting all the publicity, etc, and maybe they were whiners on the original lawsuit, etc. In any event, I suspect some feel that one company should not be the sole provider of any uber-equipment, no matter how specifically legal.


To be clear, I have no problem with the pros playing the Ping Eye2, because as you might have guessed, my "moral compass" in golf has little to do with either the pronouncements of the USGA or equality among golf club manufacturers.

[Clark]

[size=4]The only difference it'll make is on the rough and sand, the spin rate is pretty much the same off the short grass. I say if its not breaking the rules then play on![/size]

[Range-Rat]

i think its cool and retro

[golfdad907]

Well,leave it to the USGA to change a rule then fook themselves with some 20 year old suit they lost for , changing the rules.

If they want Pros to score higher, setup the courses harder. Since the average golfer has to switch (granted not for long time) to be 'legal', just making game harder for the masses. And don't think the ball companies won't just change the ball to spin more to compensate for the wedges.

As far as Pros and Ping Eye wedges, the USGA agreed to make them legal in perpetuity, so they are legal, so play them.

[LSeca]

[quote name='stage1350' date='28 January 2010 - 12:09 PM' timestamp='1264698573' post='2209849']
Way to grow the game, USGA. If you think what you did was for the good of the sport, go spend the next 30 minutes punching yourself in the testicles.
[/quote]

I agree and would love to see every pro bagging an Eye 2, and I mean every one of them, just to spite the rediculous way the USGA has implemented this rule.
'

[philsRHman]

You guys got me thinking about this one. But while all the focus is on Phil, the real issue is how the USGA went about this rule. They're using grooves as a way to make rough more penal, and force players to concentrate more on accuracy than distance. While I think Mickelson and the others use the old wedges are fine (because anyone who wants to game an Eye2, can get their hands on one), the real issue is the rule.

As I wrote over in my TST column: If you want to to limit speeding on the highways, you stop people from driving too fast. You don't ban cars that are capable of breaking the speed limit. And you certainly don't carve out an exemption for a certain model car and then never pull over someone driving one. Therein lies the problem with the USGA rule. ... Just don't get mad when Phil or Long John waves as they speed past you in their 1989 roadster. Afterall, there's an entire lot of them, just grab the keys.
[size="4"][color="#333333"][size=2][url="http://thesandtrap.com/thrash_talk/mickelson_gets_into_the_groove"]http://thesandtrap.com/thrash_talk/mickelson_gets_into_the_groove[/url]
[/size][/color][/size]

[resist_hard.]

This is a non issue for me. The USGA haven't exactly done there research and have essentially been outsmarted by John Daly. No offense to JD. But i think that speaks volumes of the USGA's intelligence.

The thing that i am worried about is that; because the attempt to reduce spin via wedges has tanked. They will also attempt to make an adjustment to the ball as well.

[dlygrisse]

I have a novel idea, GET RID OF ALL ROUGH, then no one will need the agressive grooves! The ball will then roll away from the green and will make recoveries around the greens more interesting and sometimes more difficult, think Pinehurst #2. Which is more discouraging watching your ball land in the rough next to the green or watching a shot rall back to your feet or 20 yards away from the green?

The USGA dropped the ball years ago by approving equipment that should have never been allowed to start with.
1. "trampoline" faces on clubs. This rule was in the book but they had no way to measure it, titanium came along and the OEM's started making larger clubs but didnt even realize they were springy. These should have never been allowed on the market to start with, and even if they were the faces should have been required to be thicker. Now we have a siutation where high swing speed players are much longer and avg. swing speed players are just a little longer.

2. Grooves, the OEM's found a loop hole to allow the grooves in the first place, the rule should have been written better.

3. Fixing the club to your body, long putters and belly putters are silly and are not golf.

4. A lot of people say the ball, but if the first two would have been controlled then the ball would be different today out of necessity.

5. They should have fought the lawsuit with Ping, I like Ping, love thier clubs but they outsmarted and out lawyered the USGA. If the USGA and the PGA were not asleep at the wheel then the clubs would have never been on the conforming list to begin with, would have never made it to market and this would all be a non issue.

They need to quit looking in the rear view mirror and be a little more proactive not reactive.

[mbshaf]

''If a player feels that he needs more spin, why would he not use a square groove if it's legal? The Ping wedges are legal per the USGA, therefore I don't see anything wrong with it. If it becomes an issue, the wedges will become illegal, simple enough. Why not take advantage of the opportunity if it is within the rules? ''

 

[/font]

Golf is the most distinguished sport in history because its a game of HONESTY otherwise we would not be calling penalties to ourselves. We DO NOT take advantage, We play as it lies! If I was a tour player and was contemplating Bending a 60 to a 64 with square grooves just to get some bite, I think that would be the perfect time to hang my clubs in the garage. Just my 2 cent!

 

Playing it where it lies can be a metaphor for the rules as well. He didn't make the rule, he's just playing it where it lies. Well done Phil!

[mbshaf]

[quote name='LSeca' date='29 January 2010 - 07:09 AM' timestamp='1264748973' post='2211518']
[quote name='stage1350' date='28 January 2010 - 12:09 PM' timestamp='1264698573' post='2209849']
Way to grow the game, USGA. If you think what you did was for the good of the sport, go spend the next 30 minutes punching yourself in the testicles.
[/quote]

I agree and would love to see every pro bagging an Eye 2, and I mean every one of them, just to spite the rediculous way the USGA has implemented this rule.
'
[/quote]


+1

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='app10' date='29 January 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1264743586' post='2211427']
For anyone saying that Ping Eye2 use is "morally wrong", I do accept the argument that just because something is legal does not make it right. However, we base our moral judgments on an independent standard of right and wrong (e.g. human rights in the case of stoning or torturing people, etc). What is the independent "moral" standard that makes it wrong to use Ping Eye2? That they offer an "unfair advantage"? Not really. Not anymore than many other technologies. That they violate the "spirit of the game"? Maybe, but I sure hope that if you believe this, you are not playing urethane balls or titanium drivers (or, heaven forbid, using one of those ghastly long putters).

[/quote]

I appreciate your above thinking regarding the previous, ugly, stoning metaphor. Beyond a lack of a moral standard to begin with, this controversy is also distinct from the death penalty issue in that in this case it is the same authority, the USGA, which defined both the Ping Eye 2's legality and last year's gooves' legality. It's not as if there are competing ideologies at work.

[isogood]

a picture of the Ping Eye 2 wedge of Phil Mickelson by my friend Fatiha Betscher in Torrey Pines yesterday

 

[hardten]

I love it. To each his own but there are guys on various forums that think the guys that don,t have to get "conforming" irons should dump thier stuff anyway and buy new now or else they are not playing REAL golf. I find that attitude pompous and arrogant and throw in stupid to boot. I just hope I am around in 2024. Of course I am not talking about the guys playing in certain USGA events but I think they even have some time. I would not play a non conforming driver or other stick deemed inappropriate previous to the new ruling. These "true golfers" must think PM, Daly,and others playing the pre 1990 Ping wedges not true golfers.

[gdb99]

How did he get a picture yesterday? I thought no phones or cameras are allowed when the tournament starts. Is he in the media?

[SnapFade2]

don't know what ever one thinks but i found this article

[url="http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/blog/devil_ball_golf/post/Tour-players-accuse-Phil-Mickelson-of-cheating-?urn=golf"]http://sports.yahoo....ating-?urn=golf,216497[/url]

that should be the link now

[Bucken77]

You can't cheat if you are playing by the rules. It's the USGA's fault this is happening not Phils.

[JD3]

Your link's not working, but if thats the article where Rocco and McCarron are calling Phil out for using the grandfathered Ping wedges, I agree with them. Seemed pretty squirrely when some lesser players were doing it and I'm surprised no one spoke out before, but now that a premier one is doing it, I guess some couldn't remain silent any more. Technioally it's legal, but it certainly violates the spirit of the rule. To me just shows how addicted Phil is to the "bomb and gouge" style of play. Also shows how ill conceived the new rule is.

[oJAKo]

Here is the story..

The PGA Tour season's not even a month old, and we've already got our first major controversy. And Phil Mickelson has played exactly 18 holes, and he's smack-dab in the middle of it.
At issue are new club groove rules that went into effect on Jan. 1. Long story short: golfers were using specially-cut grooves on their clubs to spin the ball more sharply and play more effectively out of the rough; the penalty for putting a shot into the rough was thus minimized. So the USGA and the Royal & Ancient, two of golf's major governing bodies, decreed that such grooves were illegal and could not be used on Tour starting this year. (For more detail, check our handy guide to the new rules right here.)
However, golfers are expert at wiggling their way out of tough situations, and they discovered that a lawsuit Ping filed against the PGA Tour and the USGA way back in 1993 exempted wedges made before 1990 from the new rules. (Don't try to figure it out, just accept it.) Lo and behold, what should turn up in the bags of golfers like John Daly and Phil Mickelson but some vintage Ping Eye 2 wedges, clubs that are old enough to legally drink.
The golfers' decision to squeeze through the loophole hasn't sat well with many of their peers. "It's cheating, and I'm appalled Phil has put [the grandfathered club] into play," Scott McCarron, a three-time Tour winner, told the San Francisco Chronicle."All those guys should be ashamed of themselves for doing that ... As one of our premier players, (Mickelson) should be one of the guys who steps up and says this is wrong."
"I don't like it at all, not one bit," added Rocco Mediate. "It's against the spirit of the rule."
Mickelson conceded at a Wednesday press conference that while he knew the Eye 2 clubs didn't conform to the new rules, they nonetheless were legal, and that was good enough for him: "All that matters is it's OK under the rules of golf."
Ah, there it is: the "rules of golf." To a great extent, the USGA has no one to blame but itself for this situation. If the USGA allowed the Pings in, it can't then turn around and arbitrarily say they're not legal. Golf is defined by its rules, and selective enforcement here is no more justifiable than, say, taking a free drop when your ball doesn't end up exactly where you'd like it.
But ... golf is also a sport of self-policed rules. You call your own fouls. And from that standpoint, it makes sense that other players would expect Phil to step up and say that the spirit of the law ought to take precedence over the letter of the law. If he were to publicly distance himself from the clubs, plenty of other pros would, too.
Regardless, this is an early reminder of how it's going to be for Phil. In the absence of Tiger Woods, with the expectation that Phil will take over the No. 1 slot, every move he makes will be scrutinized, dissected and criticized. And if he wins, it'll only get that much worse.

[My2Dogs]

[quote name='Chunkylover77' date='29 January 2010 - 11:17 AM' timestamp='1264785445' post='2212065']
You can't cheat if you are playing by the rules. It's the USGA's fault this is happening not Phils.
[/quote]

exactly. He is playing by the rules put in front of him. It's the USGA's fault. He sent them wedges that were to spec of the new rule but they were deamed non conforming because the USGA felt that they did not meet the "spirit" of the rule. Come on. Ernie's irons passed the test in Europe but do not pass here. With what the USGA is doing I hope all the players "fine" these Ping wedges and play them all year long!

[golf_junkie27]

How can he be cheating when it's not against the rules?

Is it cheating when Tiger hovers over YE Yang the last three holes of last year's PGA?

Is it cheating when Steve Elkington continously moves when Bubba Watson was hitting approach shots?

Certainly both might be considered against the "spirit" of the game, no? Since the game is built upon acting like a gentlemen.

Personally, I have no problem with it. It's legal and that's what matters. The last thing I want to hear from lesser players is moaning. You have two options: 1) Shutup and 2) Use the wedges.

I'm sure Phil, Dean Wilson, JD are all having a distinct advantage using wedges that are over 20 years old and have worn grooves. Considering JD shot +7 and Phil was six shots in back of the leader, I can see how they're gaining an "advantage."

[SnapFade2]

i still think its kinda shade for mick to be using them he is bigger than that i know Tiger would do that. maybe with the ladies not in golf

[Dayton]

Phil is playing the Eye2 wedges just to stick it to the USGA. He thinks the new rules are stupid and being enforced poorly. He is probably right. It's his way of saying "here's to you" to the blue bloods.

[steenboatmd]

Do you think in another month the tour guys will be all over ebay trying to scoop up all the ping eye 2 sand and lob wedges?

I got a couple in the closet, might just have to go on the bay in a month or two!

In all seriousness, Phil should not be getting pressure for playing these. If the USGA has a problem with it, they can go back to court with Ping.

[tigerphan]

if everyone is allowed to do it by the rules, its not cheating.