Phil's Slandered Clippings, Vol. 1
Okay so Phil Mickelson uttered his new mantra "publicly slandered" several times, but we'll go with the version that was in Doug Ferguson's AP story (he also said it in his CBS interview with Peter Kostis and with TGC's Jim Gray).
But after a 70 in the third round put Mickelson within four shots of the lead, he made it clear he would not go quietly.
“We all have our opinions on the matter, but a line was crossed and I just was publicly slandered,” Mickelson said. “And because of that, I’ll have to let other people handle that.”
Asked if he was contemplating a lawsuit, Mickelson said, “I’m not going into specifics what that meant.”
Larry Dorman concluded this from the quote:
With that handoff of the grooves issue to tour brass back in Ponte Vedra, Fla. — a clear implication that he expects McCarron to receive fines, a suspension or both — Mickelson turned his focus back to doing what it will take to pass the five players between himself and Imada and start the year with a win at his season opener.
Which brings us to the local rule question and why the tour didn't invoke one. Yesterday the tour issued its first statement and I missed this in a Ferguson AP story:
PGA Tour spokesman Ty Votaw said it had a different settlement with Ping in 1993 that contained “different conditions,” which would allow the tour to ban the Ping clubs.
Jim Achenbach of Golfweek filed this earlier in the week in which PING had a very different take.
How could the PGA Tour prohibit the wedges?
Said Solheim, “Their (the PGA Tour) agreement with us is that they will follow USGA rules. They do have an out to that, where they can go through several procedures and prove they have a need. It’s not an easy thing to do, by any means. I think there is no way they could meet the protocol.”
Explaining that protocol, Ping attorney Rawleigh Grove said, “It’s a series of steps. It’s all about the science of it. There would have to be a panel of experts, if you will, to make sure that the right decision is being made. This is no benefit for us. There is no payment, no money changing hands.”
Steve Elling wonders why the tour took so long to cover Phil's back. Perhaps because he was trying to create trouble and deserved to dangle a bit on his own (that's why I'll never be Commissioner).
After ignoring a legion of news-gathering organizations that requested formal tour comment Friday about what McCarron said, the Ponte Vedra brass awakened Saturday afternoon and finally conceded that the veteran had over-reached. Of course, the tour still didn't have the gumption to actually mention by name either McCarron or Mickelson, who did nothing wrong and had his character assaulted.
The tour left Mickelson twisting the wind for a day before doing the right thing.
Elling also notes:
Ping officials told reporters at the PGA Merchandise Show in Orlando that the original agreement with the tour from 1993 means the Eye 2 clubs are grandfathered in and that any modification of that pact would be a highly complicated affair.
Here is the PGA Tour's statement, promulgated for your reading enjoyment.
In light of the public comments that have been made regarding the use of pre-1990 Ping Eye 2 irons in competitions sanctioned by the PGA TOUR, it is important for our players, fans and the media to understand the following:
• 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.
Commissioner Finchem will address this issue in greater detail on Tuesday, Feb. 2 during a regularly scheduled player meeting and with the media during the 2010 Northern Trust Open.
Oh goodie! I'll be there too! Feel free to email your questions for the Commissioner.
Back to Saturday and Mickelson v. McCarron, Bob Harig writes:
It is quite possible that McCarron, a member of the tour's Player Advisory Council and a former member of the Policy Board, could be fined, suspended or both for his comments.
But we'll never know unless he informs us, because the tour does not announce such discipline.
One clue might come next week at the Northern Trust Open in Los Angeles, where McCarron is listed as part of the field. If he suddenly withdraws, perhaps that is your answer.
He also shared this from Ernie Els:
"It's ridiculous, isn't it?'' said Ernie Els. "Basically all the governing bodies stood back and let the players handle the whole issue again. It's almost a little too late now, because all the damage has been done already. Some players have spoken out against other players, which we don't want to see out here on tour, and it's unfortunate.''
So where does this mess leave us? I guess I'm back to where this all started earlier in the week when Phil essentially knew he was stirring the pot and even taking a risk that it might blow up in his face.
What would motivate him to add a 20-year-old club to his bag just a week or so before starting his season, even if he hadn't been using it all off-season and even though it would make his friends at Callaway look bad since they are also in the wedge business.
Ryan Ballengee makes an impressive and detailed case that Mickelson and Callaway have finally figured out that by agreeing to the groove rule change they effectively endorsed a bifurcation of the rules. Now, most of us observers knew this the moment the USGA made the announcement and wondered why all these big, smart, powerful CEO's didn't see it. 
Anyway, here's Ballengee's key conclusion posted amidst several interesting anecdotes and links to intriguing stories from the past:
Mickelson is not only pursuing this vendetta on his behalf, though. It is clear that he is also doing this on behalf of Callaway Golf, his equipment sponsor. A source very close to Callaway and its CEO George Fellows indicated that Fellows has been furious that the USGA has been discussing the new regulations as a collaborative effort between the ruling body and manufacturers. Fellows is furious at the rule, its impact on innovation, and the penalty that the rule imposes on professional golfers.
That flies in the face of public comments that Fellows made in an April 2008 interview with The Economist (after the USGA introduced its grooves proposal in February 2007), endorsing bifurcation of the equipment rules of the sport.
Callaway has to conform to a welter of arcane specifications: there are regulations about how far from the centre of the club a ball can be hit and still go straight, for example. These are intended to stop Tiger Woods shooting 30 under par, but also make the game less fun for less gifted players. Golf needs to "bifurcate" into a professional sport and a game for the masses, says Mr Fellows.
What Fellows and Callaway face for the next fourteen years is effectively bifurcation of the equipment rules of the sport. His vision of bifurcation, though, was to keep equipment rules as they had been and allow for a smaller regulations box for amateur equipment.
And just think, it would all have been so much easier to roll the ball back and let everyone keep what they had in the bag. Whew, glad that never happened. This is SO much more fun!
Saturday, January 30, 2010 at 08:33 PM
Reader Comments (41)
nuf said
Instead of mere confusion, uncertainty, timidity, apathy, indifference, dimwittedness, etc.
As for Ping -- it is pretty funny to hear the Solhiems solemnly pronounce on what sorts of detailed scientific evidence it is that the Tour might have to show to a panel of experts. Because as far as I am aware, the 20 year-old agreement could be rewritten at will by the parties. There is a continuing mess over the Eye 2's for the simple reason that Ping continues to insist on it. All to do... what? Protect the retail customers of the Eye 2's? To protect the "Eye 2" brand name in the marketplace? A brand name that hasn't been in production for more than a decade?
Pretty messy state of the tour right now in tough economic times. A lot of sponsors primary reason for spending money on golf is integrity and lack of controversy.
In the context of Washington DC . . . We have Progressives on one side seeing a large problem and offering solutions. . . On the other side we have Conservatives standing in the way - putting their hand up and saying "stop." . . . So - Do we really have a problem that requires a solution? If so, will the offered solutions fix the problem? Which side are you on?
I'm sick an tired of punters whingeing about what should happen but never actually offer a solution.
Well? Do any of you have the balls to address the question I've raised.
This is all very ugly. It is being handled badly by all parties. It is also self-inflicted and unnecessary. Worse still, It is not good for the game.
As for Ping's motivation, Jim, I presume only one thing. That Ping is motivated to promote its products and the company, and to make money. Period. The only specific motivation that Ping might have with respect to the new Condition of Competition and its old settlement with the USGA is that we now have a rules mess that is embarassing the Tour, many Tour players, the USGA and Ping. I add Ping to that list of parties who will be embarassed because I presume that there will be more and more people like me who will point out that Ping could end this entire Eye 2 controversy on Tour by simply agreeing to modify the old agreement. It is in Ping's power to let the Tour resolve this mess, if Ping will allow it. It would not neccessarily involve a recission of the USGA's grandfathering agreement in its separate Settlement Agreement with Ping. Ping and the Tour could agree that the Ping Eye 2 will not be used on Tour, but the the Tour will continue to otherwise observe the USGA's rules on equipment. The Tour could volunteer to pay Ping for all of its legal expenses in that effort, as a symbolic tribute to Ping's sense of sportsmanship under the circumstances. And recreational players could still play with grandfathered Pings. (Yet another regrettable baby-step toward bifurcation, but whatever.)
Finally, Jim informs us that "the Ping Eye 2 is in production." Jim, do us all a favor. Send an e-mail to Ping; ask them if they are still producing the Ping Eye 2 that was the subject of the company's dispute with the USGA. Ask if all of Ping's production of the Ping Eye 2 with the problematic grooves ended in, (I believe) 1991.
Check all of that out for yourself, Jim, and then report back to us.
You refer to the very interesting and provocative interview that John Huggan obtained with Wally Uihlein. In which Wally Uihlein suggested that if the USGA wanted to change the rules on golf balls, it was his (Uihlein's) notion that the USGA would have to purchase, or otherwise compensate the manufacturers, for the thousands of existing patents on golf ball design and manufacturing. It would, I can only imagine, be a cost in the billions-with-a-B.
But why? What makes Mr. Uihlein think that the USGA has such an obligation? Why can't the USGA make the rules it deems reasonable? If Titleist doesn't like the USGA's rules, why not let Titleist create its own golf association, the Bomb Gouge Golf Association (BGGA) and invite players to play by their rules and build equipment to their own specs?
There's no good legal reason that I can think of, speaking generally, apart from highly-specific issues under statute law, that the USGA can't make or change the Rules of Golf. Do we give Titleist, or Ping, control over what the USGA does?
I know I've cited it repeatedly lately, but Justice Scalia's dissent in the Casey Martin case is really a perfect rebuttal to all of this. Games are arbitrary creations, played by arbitrary rules. The USGA has limited driver head size to 460cc. Does that mean that the manufacturer of a nifty 500cc design should be able to sue the USGA to force it to change?
In Titleist's case, the facts are only slightly different. Titleist will say that it has been researching, designing, and manufacturing to an existing standard. That the company has somehow "relied" on existing standards, and that it is not just the USGA but the interlocking influence of a whole industry that relies on USGA determinations.
Well, sorry. I don't think that the USGA would ever decide, in secret and overnight, to hammer a new ball regulation down the throats of the poor starving executives at Acushnet. In fact, the USGA hasn't. They've done ball studies, they've invited input from the manufacturers, they've solicited sample and prototype designs.
So, no, Mr c and c: I don't see any reason why Titleist ought to be able to demand that the USGA pay Titleist and others for thousands of ball patents. (I've not even touched upon the technical question as to why Mr. Uihelein thinks that all old ball patents might be rendered valuless, if some minor technical-specification change were made by the USGA. That's another issue, and also a highly dubious position taken by Uihlein.)
Tim Finchem had the obligation to protect his players and the game from all of this controversy and make a decision 16 months ago. Phil has his agenda with Callaway and McCarron feels he is protecting the game. Neither are wrong or right. Blame Tim Finchem. NOT the USGA or anyone else.
Lastly, PING has no motivation to amend settlements from 20 years ago, how will this help them? Sell more clubs? Chuck you make it out like all this mess is PING's fault, thats where we differ. The USGA has a road littered with bad decisions after another, the game has gotten away from them, and now its all coming to a big explosion, where nobody cares about pro golf anymore.
I think they did. I think they decided a long time ago, that this would not be a big deal. That few players would go back to the 20 year-old designs. And that the effect on anyone's play would be negligible.
Now, we can say, the Tour guessed very, very badly. It is a big deal. But really, Vince; is it? Is it such a big deal? My personal and informal count is that before this year, there were a handful of Eye 2 wedges on tour. Of the players using them this year two (Dean Wilson is one example) were already using them. They did not jump to the Eye 2 to gain a miracle improvement. Now, it appears that in the San Diego field at Torrey, approximately 5 or 6 additional players put Eye 2 wedges in their bags. Uniformly, they were guys like John Daly and Phil Mickelson, who had used those wedges long ago when they were carrying Ping clubs in college or in early days on tour. And additionally, there were guys like Hunter Mahan, who is a Ping staffer (a Ping lifer in Mahan's case) and who very likely used a wedge very much like the Eye 2 at some point.
So, was the Tour really so wrong when they (presumably) made the calculation that it would be no big deal? In fact, I think it could be argued that the Tour was right, on the numbers. Eye 2 use is mostly a curiosity, an anomaly. I am certainly not convinced of any great advantage. It will be interesting if Dick Rugge and his staff have spent the last five days testing Eye 2's and new C-C Vokeys, to compare. And if they will report on that.
But the real problem was the P.R. nightmare. You put "Rules Controversy, 'cheating,' John Daly and Phil Mickelson into an equation with "0=No news about Tiger Woods," and you are guatanteed a big story.
So yes, this is a big story. Yes, the Tour missed out on preemptively and quickly and nimbly handling a big story. And yes it has become a mess. But was the Tour really so wrong in thinking that as a matter of fact, the Eye 2 wedges should not be a big deal as a matter of competitive advantage?
Several top players, Nicklaus included, spoke of an impending ball problem a good 10 years ago.
The ruling bodies are afraid of litigation, which is a shame, so they let it get away from them. the grooves are an interesting part of the problem. When I first started playing, a "tight pin" was 5 from the edge of the green, now it is common to have 2 or 3 out of 18 within 3 yards of the edge of the green. The course set-ups were changed as a knee-jerk reaction to the equipment.
If a ruling body changes the rules, then play by the rules. MLB Baseball disallowed the aluminum bats, tennis disallowed the double strung racquets, why can't golf's ruling bodies make a stand.
Why not let the PGA Tour step in and say, WE are going to have rules for our competitions. IF any manufacturer is unhappy with it, make whatever they want, BUT the tour boys can't use it. I see it as the manufacturers have very little creativity in their marketing, and rely solely on the "we had X% playing our Ball/Club in last week's PGA TOUR event". ENOUGH already, who cares what some guy who has spent his whole life practicing is using? What is good for a tour players is most likely NOT good for the average player, so get over it. The manufacturers need to stop addressing the amateur's egos, and try to sell them something that will help THEIR game. They will NEVER hit a shot like a pro, let alone play like one.
IF the manufacturer's took their collective heads out of their collective butts, and tried to do the right thing for the masses, and STOPPED putting so much emphasis on the world's tours, the game would soon be in a better place.
Stop thinking inside the marketing box, and do what is good for the game.
I'll do your homework for you. I just e-mailed Ping:
"Can you build a set of Ping Eye 2's, of any groove configuration, for me?
Can I purchase new Ping Eye 2 wedges, of any groove configuration?
Do you make, or sell, any new Ping Eye 2 clubs, of any kind?"
Ping has generally answered questions from me in about 48 hours, so this shouldn't take too long, although they might be hammered with Eye 2 questions this week. Whatever answer I get, I will happily share it with you.
In the meantime, you might want to consider that Ping has no retail displays for Eye 2 clubs, has no listing for them on their website other than in "classic" products, and, I expect, will tell us that the only Eye 2 sales are for registered owners of existing sets who need a replacement club. And that was, and is, my point; that now, if the Eye 2 were to be disallowed on the PGA Tour, Ping would not have any claim that commercial sales of the Eye 2 line would be damaged. Because there are no appreciable sales of the Eye 2 line.
As to the Settlement Agreement from the 1991-93 litigation, that's another matter. You ask, rightly, whether Ping has any motivation to re-do the Agreement. Not much, I'd concede. I think I already did concede that. Except that the status quo is a mess, and the more that people lay the blame at Ping's doorstep, as the one private party with the power to re-do the agreement as to the Tour, the more likely I think it might be that Ping might want to get out from under the controversy. But we shall see. I'm not predicting anything; I am just saying that Ping has the power to fix this, whether they decide to do that or not.
Jim you say that it is your opinion that Ping might have faced bankruptcy over the old groove lawsuit. How? Why? What was the legal/financial threat to PIng? When PIng settled with the USGA, Ping immediately went to from "Radiused U-groove" Eye 2's, to the Eye 2+ model, and barely skipped a beat in the retail market. I think you are wrong, and I'm asking you to be more specific in explaininng yourself.
The USGA, on the other hand, did face financial ruin, and that is why, very reluctantly, they settled. Under a massive (and, I'd say, malevolent) damages-claim threat from Ping. Ping sued under the Sherman Anti-trust act and claimed treble damages under a portion of that act. Ping wanted to calculate all of its conceivable damages from a loss of sales and competitive advantage from its radiused U-groove model (a claim that time has taught us, was dubious) and then triple that amount. The USGA feared for its financial life, and settled. That was not a threat imposed on Ping.
You will soon see that PING will happily sell you a fresh new set of Eye 2s. I'm not affiliated with PING whatsoever.
Even Chuck would agree with me, if anything this PING Eye 2 noise, its bring the issue to the front pages, everyone is talking about it-technology and distance, et al. Sure, lets go back to a slower ball, I agree, who's (mfg) going to make the first move?
But as you note, that isn't really the biggest issue. The issue is that golf is caught in a controversy over rules. Words like "cheating" are being thrown around, rightly or wrongly.
To compound matters the protagonist for all of this is the leading player on tour today. I would have hoped he would have a sense of responsibility to the game not to let this happen. But then Phil has never been the sharpest knife in the drawer. He is certainly out of his depth here.
@JamesXXXXXXX Eye2+ irons are available new from PING.
14 minutes ago from Echofon in reply to xxxxxxxxxx
It is the USGA's fault, and the PGA Tour is complicit as well.
Change the ball.
Jim, it is not up to ONE manufacturer to step up, it is up to the Ruling Bodies to make the rules. The equipment companies can make conforming clubs if they wish, the ruling bodies are not forcing them to make conforming clubs. BUT, the tournament players have to play with conforming clubs.
The USGA, R&A, and PGA Tour have NO responsibility to the manufacturers. They have the job of protecting the game and running tournaments.
Why do the manufacturers believe they have this entitlement???? Maybe the manufacturers are Democrats!!!!!!!!
Chuck-sort of off topic but I think we'd all enjoy a refresher of the USGA / Russian Tea Room story !
I am also given to understand that the grandfathered eye 2's will not be allowed to be re-grooved so, presumably, these will (from a professional's perspective at any rate) be permanently retired in due course?
Re the rolling back of ball technology, I can't understand either what legal justification the ball manufacturers have in threatening the governing bodies with litigation if they tried to roll back the ball. Provided a level playing field is produced, what's the problem? Uihlein intimated in that interview that his company would sue.
Trouble is that if the manufacturers got together to fight such a change, I wouldn't have thought the USGA had the financial clout to go the full proverbial fifteen rounds with them and perhaps this is why they haven't attempted to do so. I don't know how the USGA is set up from a companies aspect but it wasn't so long ago that the R&A viz the members themselves who would have had to have faced any financial consequences as a result of any litigation going against them.
However, if the game is to be run with integrity then it needs to be kept out of the hands of the professional bodies for reasons which should be obvious to all!
The conundrum is, how to protect the governing bodies from unreasonable hostile attacks from the manufacturers of golf equipment?
Suggestions ... anyone.
Incidentally chuck, its Mrs c&c although I can't blame you for thinking I was male given the defitinition of my nom de guerre!