Remembering What The Tour Is Dealing With, John Solheim Edition
It's been suggested by PING that they warned the USGA and PGA Tour of the potential for a groove rule debacle on several occasions. Those were private letters, but in CEO John Solheim's lengthy, rambling and at times bizarre June, 2009 statement voicing opposition to the grooves, he did not warn of any potential oddities with interpretation of the rules.
He did, however, offer some really strange excuses for shelving the groove rules and they are worth reading to better understand how complicated the USGA and PGA Tour's negotiation over the 20-year-old settlement with PING could become.
Oh, and in light of the ebay sale of PING wedges, Solheim certainly got it wrong about resale value:
7. What happens to hundreds of millions of "Used" golf clubs - which have always been an important asset in golf. I believe it is important to many golfers, particularly PING customers, that their used clubs maintain a great trade-in value, often for twenty or more years. I am concerned that declaring that hundreds of millions of previously approved clubs will later be non-conforming will impact the resale value of those clubs. It is wrong to diminish the value of these previously approved clubs purchased by hardworking men and women simply because a few Tour pros (who get their clubs for free) seem to complain that "golfers today have it too easy."
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 09:55 PM
Reader Comments (32)
declaring ping eye-2s illegal now w/o a lot of broken glass. waiting for phil to find the next big thing, however, will likely talke a few months.
once phil takes em out of his bag, nobody will care anymore. john daly using a ping eye-2 to shoot 80--not a big deal, at least to me. (if he trashes his hotel room though, call me)
My $5 bet is that this blows over by the British Open
I guess that's fine if your target demographic is "those who play golf" as opposed to "golfers". Clearly, that is the larger market, but when "making the game easier" crosses the line and you begin challenging the rulemaking bodies, that's where I draw the line.
Ping needs to knock it off and start seeing the bigger picture. There is a lot of rich tradition in our game, and that includes the USGA who does what they do for the love of the game. It is fine if Karsten Solheim, John Solheim, and Ping have chosen to do things for "the average golfer", but too often they do it with blinders on. They forget - or completely ignore - tradition and history, and do so to the detriment of the game. Now is one of those times.
If John Solheim doesn't settle this matter once and for all, he's going to end up hurting his business. Nobody likes a smart-ass.
Take Titleist by contrast. They have a totally different view of the USGA than Ping or even Callaway. They are much more respectful of the USGA's role and I believe that its out of respect for the traditions of the game.
We all remember Callaway's ERC II drver controversy. It was a con-conforming driver as deemed by the USGA and yet they still chose to sell it. No surprise that they, too, are in the middle of the groove controversy.
My point is that there is a very important role for the USGA, and some manufacturers understand and respect that role while others do not. We traditionalists support the former and decry the latter.
Said another way, shall we just play with NO rules?
John Solheim is probably the best able to determine how this will impact his business. And it is his business. Maybe Tim has some lattitude to give a little on some issues important to Solheim in exchange. Maybe if Tim wasn't so intransigent about other matters, Solheim would gladly settle.
We have reached an interesting point where businessmen who risk their own fortunes are vilified by those who want him to "settle" with Tim Finchem.
What if he said to Tim: "i'll settle but you have to fire 5 EVPs and cut your pay in half." or if he told the USGA: "I'll settle but you have to roll back the golf ball"
And I love the idea that Ping is poison because Karsten got into the golf business for all the wrong reasons. Who appointed you?
Nobody appointed me. I'm just a representative of that lone voice in the wilderness called "Tradition". Obvisously, you are the opposing view.
The nerve of me for actually having an opinion that is counter to yours. However, I'm quite comfortable supporting the idea that golf has a rich tradition worth preserving.
I'll cast my lot with Scott McCarron...as soon as he gets rid of his long putter. :-)
Can you imagine the chaos if the PGA Tour had no equipment rules?
- All current records go out the window
- Many, if not all, current golf courses would be obsoleted because golf balls would fly 500 yard or
more.
- There would be no level playing field for competitors
- They would have to redesign every single course, making them much, much longer
- Players would have 100 or more clubs in their bags, one for every possible type of shot
And the list goes on...
On the larger issue of the Rules of Golf, it gets even worse. Pace of play goes in the tank, etiquette goes out the window, "play is as it lies" is history, "hand mashies" and "foot wedges" are the order of the day.
Anyway, you get my point...even if you disagree with it. Which is why I am a traditionalist and you probably are not.
The reason: Respect for the Rules of Golf, tradition and the authority of the USGA.
The game changed WHEN the golf ball changed - mainly for people who swing a driver over 100 MPH and could hit a golf ball squarely. . . Can we please stop this stuff about blaming the golf clubs? . . .
The "tradition" you favor so vehemently is the long adored traditon which uses those accessories that always make me think of Old Tom.....calipers, micrometers, spin rate lanch montiors, metallurgical devices. I can smell cut grass and heather just thinking about all these magnificant symbols of the Auld Game.
Ahem. This whole thing is inside baseball bullshit and has nothing to do with the traditions of the game. This is the teensiest weensiest corner of the equipment regulations and it is all about commerce and power, which is important but not magical.
Right after the check for $1B cleared and was distributed to equipment mfgers for their patents and royalties....as Wally Ulhein has delcared several times.
Is that too complex for you?
Don't try to mischaracterize my comments.
Prior to the Pro V1 in 2000 Tiger was playing the 3 piece solid core urethane covered Nike TW ball (mfgd by Bridgestone) and certain players were playing the multi layer solid core urethane covered Top Flite produced Strata. Callaway also had the ML sold core Rule 35 on tour as well.
So Phil and Dean Wilson use a LEGAL club that spins a ball out of the rough a little more than some other clubs. And you have created a catastrophic chain of events in your mind which leads directly to the ruination of the game.
Breathe, my friend. This is not a big deal. It is inside baseball.
To repeat, I have been defending the apparently controversial idea that golf should be played on a level playing field and that we respect the authority of the ruling bodies.
If you want to skewer me for my "radical" views, I can take it. However, I do find it disappointing that anyone would get so much resistance for such ideas. It's very instructive.
As for equipment issues, I'll stand with the likes of Tom Watson, who only yesterday stated that the golf ball is the problem. Perhaps you would like to skewer him?
To rmppia . . . Jamie Sadlowski (the 2 time long drive champion) has now flown tee shots fairly consistently over 400 yards and he is 5' 10" and 165 pounds. . . At some point there will be a "genetic freak" who might reach 500 yards. . . But - the important thing to say is that Jamie is hitting a zero spin golf ball (even with a "cheaters" wedge) that would be very difficult - even for an expert player - to control around the green. I too hope Frank Hannigan is always correct.
1. Distance - At 62, I hit the ball farther than I did in my 20s.
2. Direction - The ball flies straighter than in the past when mis-hit.
3. Grooves - A square grooved 60-degree sand wedge spins the ball more than an identical V-grooved sand wedge, and therefore makes short shots around the green easier.
4. Flight - The ball spins less and, therefore, when matched with the correct driver loft, carries much farther than in the past.
5. Drivers - HUGE headed drivers make it much easier to hit tee shots far and straight. Mis-hits are not penalized nearly as much as in the past.
6. Irons - Perimeter-weighted irons mitigate mis-hits, thus making approach shots easier.
At some point we need to ask, Are these changes good for the game, and when do we place further limits on innovation before the game is unalterably compromised?
As I wrote yesterday on this blog, why don't we just get rid of clubs altogether, give everyone Golf Ball Bazookas and a Rodney Dangerfield Caddyshack putter, and rename the game Bazooka Ball?
HIs site is franklygolf com
Beginning, of course with the Haskell ball in the 1900s which flew further and straighter than the gutta (the gutta, of course flew further and straighter than the feathery). The Haskell, wickedly in pursuit of profit, forced golf courses to be redesigned and lengthened - adding enormous cost to the game.
And steel shafts were so revolutionary that everyone had to relearn the golf swing.
And Ron thinks a few hundred Ping wedges in people's garages are going to ruin the game?
Fortunately, you don't have the power to compromise the game, but Ping and every other manufacturer does. That is why we need a rulemaking body such as the USGA and to a lesser degree, the PGA Tour.
When one of those manufacturers (Ping) arbitrarily changes the grooves on ALL of their irons by beveling the edges and the USGA rules against the altered grooves (the basis for the 1990 lawsuit), I have a REAL problem with that manufacturer when they sue the USGA. Especially when they knew damn well that the USGA didn't have the financial resources to defend themselves adequately. I'm sorry, but that was NOT in the interests of the game, and they're still at it.
It ain't about the grooves, it's about the rules.
Bazooka Ball for everyone!
That's my ruling...
Now you raise an interesting point. Allow me to paraphrase your point:
The USGA is always right and unerringly pursues the best interests of the game. If the USGA decrees something to be wonderful, then it is beyond any mortal questioning wonderful.
And by extension, if any grubby club seller disagrees with, or questions the lofty unerring wisdom of the USGA, then they are villainous and wrong wrong wrong.