The PGA Tour/USGA v. Solheim

Has such a retro vibe to it, no? Deane Beman must be so nostalgic. Or fired up. Or not answering his phone!

Anyway, I have no idea what's going on behind closed doors, but after having some time to reflect on today's events and the filings of three writers on site who talked to the various folks involved, it's just hard to envision this groove/PING/USGA/PGA Tour saga coming to a swift conclusion.

For starters, as Steve Elling notes, the power is in John Solheim's hands and as Elling lays out, it's hard to see the PING CEO folding too quickly.

If you want a nice primer on where things stand, Jeff Rude lays out the three primary ways this could play out and based on post-presser quotes from Tim Finchem, the various sides here are not as close in their interpretation of the situation as Finchem laid out in his rosy press conference version.

And as E. Michael Johnson lays out, the worse case committee option instigated by the tour (for the first time ever) could only make the mess...messier.

The purpose of the committee is to consider whether a special rule relating to balls or equipment is necessary for PGA Tour competitions. The committee would not recommend such a rule unless, based on the results of its investigation, specific criteria are satisfied. Among the requirements: the committee concludes the equipment under consideration "significantly affects the nature of the game" at the PGA Tour level; the current USGA Rules of Golf are not adequate to address their concerns; the legitimate interests of tour players, manufacturers and others have been considered; the recommendation is considered to be the most reasonable means of addressing the problem; and a majority of the committee is in favor of the recommendation.

Although that seems like a substantial burden for the committee to overcome, Finchem feels differently. "I think the chances are reasonably good, perhaps more than reasonably good, that the committee would say yes," said Finchem, who added the committee had never been used since its inception.

Solheim, however, had a different take. "PGA Tour Commissioner Finchem and I had a brief discussion [Tuesday afternoon] and he shared his belief that the 1993 settlement agreement allowed his organization to utilize the protocol to consider a special rule that would ban Ping Eye 2 irons and wedges," Solheim said. "While we strongly disagree with their interpretation of the agreement, we agreed further dialogue on the topic was healthy. We hope to speak again in the next week or so. I've also been in contact with the USGA and expect to meet with them as well."

Comments

[Wisconsin Reader]

At least the parties involved are actually talking. . . If they were politicians - one of them would be standing in the way - holding his hand up - and saying "stop."

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I don't get the Solheim's position. The clubs are 20 years old. What does he stand to gain by keeping this rule around as long as possible? Amateurs can still play the clubs for another 14 years, and those who will be affected in the college ranks in 4 years have probably never played them.

At some point you'd think it'd be a bigger win for him to play the part of the "good guy" and allow for a modification of the agreements signed 20 and 17 years ago, no?

[GCOG]

I bet he figures that he doesn't owe the USGA or PGA any favors. He owns the company and can do what he wants. He probably benefits from having the idiots at the USGA look like the idiots they truly are.

[5 putt double]

Solheim's using the loophole to gain leverage over the USGA in an attempt to rescind or modify the groove rule,if the Tour bans eye 2's he may be able to sue and get the courts involved again.The USGA needs to be very careful how they deal with this guy.