Okay, Phil Is Really, Really Not A Fan Of The USGA And Here Is Why
I just sat through Phil Mickelson's tense news conference where he really let the USGA have it. Because my lunch takes priority, here's what you need to read before we get into his comments which were both incredibly valid and oddly inconsistent.
The story is by E. Michael Johnson and Mike Stachura from last August. It details a late-in-the-game clarification by the USGA and Dick Rugge.
"Manufacturers are reminded of the intent of the new groove regulations as stated in the February 27, 2007 Notice to Manufacturers: The objective of this change is to limit the effectiveness of grooves on shots from the rough to the effect of a traditional V-groove design."
In other words, it doesn't matter if your grooves conform to the written specs, if you create something that makes the ball spin out of the rough more than we like, it's non-conforming.
"We are trying to make it crystal clear that the rule was intended to return the grooves' effectiveness on shots from the rough to that of traditional V-grooves," says Dick Rugge, senior technical director of the USGA. "That's an important factor. It was our clear intent. We developed a number of helpful provisions in the rule for manufacturers. These provisions are not meant to be ways to get around the intent of the rule. If we chose to look the other way in these areas, we wouldn't be upholding our responsibility."
But while Rugge sees it as upholding the USGA's responsibility, some manufacturers view it as something entirely else.
"It's like moving the goal line just as someone is about to score a touchdown," says Michele Szynal, spokeswoman for Callaway Golf, who added the company had products ready to show its tour players starting in August so they could be ready for their January 2010 deadline. "It's our job to maximize golf club performance within the written rules. That's pretty tough to do when the rules change monthly."
And this from Benoit Vincent of Taylor Made:
"It is not a rule, it is a process to control the future," says Benoit Vincent, chief technical officer for TaylorMade. "It's like the adjustability rule. The USGA said submit your adjustability and we will tell you if it's OK. I said 'That's not a rule. That's submit your stuff and if we see something we don't like we will rule even further.' If it's outside what they have studied and what they know, then they will rule against it. So what they are doing here with grooves is typical of what they do."
Okay, that's a table setting, now I'm off to lunch to chew on the Finchem and Mickelson prss conferences. Appetizing!
Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 11:49 AM
Reader Comments (15)
Certainly carries some litigation risk, but isn't this what we've been hoping they would do? Defend the Spirit of the Game...
Of course, this is a version of what people have been pleading for. When it arrives in a different form than what they were pleading for, they reflexively criticize the USGA, which makes precious little sense to me.
He is speaking on behalf of the company that is paying him to speak ...
This seems to mirror the same behaviour of the Wall St Bankers who spend all of their time subverting the very rules created to protect the 'average joe'.
The game of golf is in trouble if our hope depends on the ability of lawyers and regulators to constantly write and re-write the rules for the sake of a privileged few who refuse to 'play nice'.
I am glad all of this is coming to the surface though, and hope somehow this leads to a broader discussion about the spirit of the game. Although, if the outcome is shaped by the special interests of the manufacturers then we're all in trouble!
You've got to time your respect. Timing is everything. Phil said he has been working on his timing with Butch, didn't he?
...failure of leadership
Few people recall how close it came to the USGA losing that lawsuit with Karsten and the potential ramifications of a governing body not having the legal ability to govern. We might be having 425 yard drives and the ability to put spin on the ball from six inches of water.
Phil is a schmuck...
Thank you, Chuck
------
"Phil is a schmuck..."
And thank you, Vince
This is an incredibly bad faith interpretation of his comments. He wants a firm rule, because what the USGA was doing was arbitrary and capricious. Imagine if there were no speed limits, simply a statement that the folks in charge wanted people "to not go too fast". And when someone asked how fast was "too fast", the folks in charge said "well, just tell us how fast you want to go, and we'll tell you if it's too fast".
There is not only nothing wrong with trying to maximize your performance within the rules (everyone should seek to do so), but it's impossible to do if you don't know where the limits of the rules are.