Bit of controversy in the world of professional golf this past week. Having to do with grooves. We’ve discussed the groove issue here. And in that post, you remember, I pointed out that the rule takes effect in January 2010. Which means it is in effect now. I also mentioned that Ping and the USGA had reached a settlement. I didn’t get into the details of said settlement, but as it turns out I should have mentioned one particular part of it. The fact that the Ping Eye2 Irons were grandfathered in. Meaning the rule doesn’t apply to Ping Eye2’s. Which, the clubs are 20 years old now, so who would be using them, so why worry about that little grandfathering clause? Well as it turns out 20 years isn’t such a long time and there are plenty of the Eye2’s still around. And certain members of the PGA tour are using that little loophole, and playing with 20 year old square grooved clubs.
Phil Mickelson is one of those players. And other players have rather strong opinions about playing with the Eye2’s. In particular Scott McCarron. Who called it cheating. Which led Phil to say he had been slandered and threaten legal action. McCarron apologized and Phil accepted so that little crisis appears to be over. But the issue remains.
Here is a try at a brief explanation of the issue, which, as I pointed out in the previous post, really only effects about 10% of the golfers out there, professional or not. The rest of us don’t have the skills to take advantage of the groves, square or not. Anyway.
Ping is a company known for innovation in golf clubs. And, as would be expected, Ping considers any innovation it comes up with as good for the game. Not everyone agrees with Ping. The Eye2 club is not the first time Ping has run afoul of the USGA. In 1966 all of Pings putters except for one ( the Anser, which just happens to have been the most influential putter in golf. But that’s another post ) were banned because they had a certain bend in the shaft under the grip that it was felt gave players a special advantage in their putting stroke. In any case, Ping developed the square grooved Eye2 Irons. Here is a very good summary of the resulting dust up between Ping and the USGA that resulted in the lawsuit and it’s subsequent settlement, which included an exemption for the Eye2’s. But the problem of the advantage of the extra back spin remained, and thus, after much testing and discussion, the ban on square grooves was enacted. But while the USGA et. al. can set a rule, they can’t void a legal settlement. So the Eye2 exemption still stands. And the point Phil and the other players are trying to make is it was silly to put a rule in place when there was a glaring loophole like that. The USGA et. al. should have worked out the issues before enacting the rule. The USGA is saying ‘how could they have known that 20 year old clubs would cause a problem?’ Ping says they warned the USGA this would happen. So what we have now is an equipment company with a history of antagonism with golf’s ruling bodies, and a legal agreement saying their clubs are exempt on one side, and on the other, golf’s ruling bodies trying to implement a rule to bring the need for accuracy back to the game but who only have jurisdiction over the rules of golf, and can’t void a legal agreement that pretty much makes adoption of the rule dependent on the good will and fair mindedness of the players. Which leaves the players rather put out. Either a rule is a rule or it’s not, and if you can’t completely enforce it then you shouldn’t have made it, but it’s really not kosher to put them in the middle like that.
The way things stand as of this post is the players feel they have made their point and will take the Ping clubs out of their bags, for now. Ping and the USGA/PGA will sit down and try to iron out their differences. But the players have put them on notice. If they don’t come to some kind of agreement that leads to a fully enforceable rule, those 20 year old clubs will go right back into the players bags and the whole mess will start up again.
If you are really interested in what has happened in the world of professional golf since the rule went into effect here is a good summary by GolfWeek .
Meanwhile the rest of us plug along wishing our game was good enough that the shape of the grooves mattered, and a certain someone is breathing a small sigh of relief that something came along that managed to push him off the front page of golf news for at least a week or two.
Phil Mickelson is one of those players. And other players have rather strong opinions about playing with the Eye2’s. In particular Scott McCarron. Who called it cheating. Which led Phil to say he had been slandered and threaten legal action. McCarron apologized and Phil accepted so that little crisis appears to be over. But the issue remains.
Here is a try at a brief explanation of the issue, which, as I pointed out in the previous post, really only effects about 10% of the golfers out there, professional or not. The rest of us don’t have the skills to take advantage of the groves, square or not. Anyway.
Ping is a company known for innovation in golf clubs. And, as would be expected, Ping considers any innovation it comes up with as good for the game. Not everyone agrees with Ping. The Eye2 club is not the first time Ping has run afoul of the USGA. In 1966 all of Pings putters except for one ( the Anser, which just happens to have been the most influential putter in golf. But that’s another post ) were banned because they had a certain bend in the shaft under the grip that it was felt gave players a special advantage in their putting stroke. In any case, Ping developed the square grooved Eye2 Irons. Here is a very good summary of the resulting dust up between Ping and the USGA that resulted in the lawsuit and it’s subsequent settlement, which included an exemption for the Eye2’s. But the problem of the advantage of the extra back spin remained, and thus, after much testing and discussion, the ban on square grooves was enacted. But while the USGA et. al. can set a rule, they can’t void a legal settlement. So the Eye2 exemption still stands. And the point Phil and the other players are trying to make is it was silly to put a rule in place when there was a glaring loophole like that. The USGA et. al. should have worked out the issues before enacting the rule. The USGA is saying ‘how could they have known that 20 year old clubs would cause a problem?’ Ping says they warned the USGA this would happen. So what we have now is an equipment company with a history of antagonism with golf’s ruling bodies, and a legal agreement saying their clubs are exempt on one side, and on the other, golf’s ruling bodies trying to implement a rule to bring the need for accuracy back to the game but who only have jurisdiction over the rules of golf, and can’t void a legal agreement that pretty much makes adoption of the rule dependent on the good will and fair mindedness of the players. Which leaves the players rather put out. Either a rule is a rule or it’s not, and if you can’t completely enforce it then you shouldn’t have made it, but it’s really not kosher to put them in the middle like that.
The way things stand as of this post is the players feel they have made their point and will take the Ping clubs out of their bags, for now. Ping and the USGA/PGA will sit down and try to iron out their differences. But the players have put them on notice. If they don’t come to some kind of agreement that leads to a fully enforceable rule, those 20 year old clubs will go right back into the players bags and the whole mess will start up again.
If you are really interested in what has happened in the world of professional golf since the rule went into effect here is a good summary by GolfWeek .
Meanwhile the rest of us plug along wishing our game was good enough that the shape of the grooves mattered, and a certain someone is breathing a small sigh of relief that something came along that managed to push him off the front page of golf news for at least a week or two.
Comments