"The reaction was stronger than it could have been, had we more intensely last year got in front of players with the details of this rule."
;)
Tim Finchem (click to enlarge)Fighting off of a profusely bleeding paper cut, Tim Finchem joined us in the Northern Trust Open press center at 10:30 with a Mickelson presser set for 11, so naturally he kept that in mind with his opening remarks.
COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: Thank you, Laura. Good morning, everyone. Laura tells me we're on a hard stop here at 11:00, so I'm going to make some brief remarks and see if I can answer your questions.
18 minutes and the entire history of groove squabbles in golf later...
During these first four weeks, we have had five players we've had 218 different players play those four tournaments. Of those 218 players, five different players have actually used a Ping Eye 2 manufactured before 1990; not a huge amount of usage, but a number that was sufficient to create a fair amount of interest, particularly when one of the best players in the world in the short game area chose to use it, which he was fully entitled to do.
And that focus on the rule has led to a couple of things. One is that there was some unfortunate commentary by other players in the media in the last week or so, and let me just pause there and restate, as I issued my statement last week, these are the rules of golf. Any player is entitled under these rules to play a Ping Eye 2 wedge designed before 1990 if he so chooses. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing that violates the rule. There is no hidden direction to players or side direction not to play that club, so there is absolutely no basis to criticize a player for doing so. None. And to do so in our view is inappropriate.
No grey area there. Makes me wonder if McCarron faced a possible suspension?
With respect to a particular player that used a particularly unfortunate choice of words, I would say that there is perhaps a mitigating factor to the amount of reaction. There is no justification for certain language being used, but the reaction was stronger than it could have been, had we more intensely last year got in front of players with the details of this rule.
Now, what do I mean by that?
We screwed up?
Well, two years ago when we instituted our drug policy, we made sure that we were in front of every single player in dialogue on the ramifications of drug testing, on the reality that you could be suspended if you violated the drug testing rules, and the dos and don'ts of staying in compliance. Players paid attention. They came out and performed, and we haven't had drug issues on this TOUR. That's not to say we haven't had a violation; that's been reported. But we haven't had issues.
We didn't act with that level of intensity. In my view, had we, the reaction to the use of these clubs might have been lesser. But that is what it is, and I think we're about to close the chapter on that part of the history of this.
Well there you have it, an admission of error, Finchem style.
In this particular case, the most striking thing about the difference between the groove discussion in 1989 and '90, which was based on some tests and led to a lack of confidence on the part of the PGA TOUR or the USGA that you could win a lawsuit, in this case there have been years and years of very careful measurement of data, of the lack of correlation of hitting the ball in the fairway and performing well on the PGA TOUR, so it's a very strong case, and I think that's one of the reasons you didn't see a lawsuit amongst manufacturers here, because there is a strong case.
But the byproduct I know I've read some people say this is a backdoor attempt to create softer balls. I'm not aware of anybody that believes that.
Uh Tim, that's Dick Rugge, USGA for starters.
But I do think that with this rule we really could relax a little bit about the need to fool around with the ball and the driver for an extended period of time. That's my only view.
Well good to know that after five weeks you were able to draw a conclusion from the data.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 03:06 PM 19 Comments | in 2010 Northern Trust Open, Grooves, Technology, Tim Finchem, USGA
Reader Comments (19)
http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/Phil-Mickelson-to-ditch-wedge-after-cheating-claim-020310
Let's say, last fall, we had been sitting around with Finchem and Rugge and David Fay and Jim Vernon, and say that the subject of the Eye 2 came up, and I told you and the rest of the group, "As of February, once the full-field events get going, there will be about a half-dozen guys using Eye 2's. As we know there are a couple of guys who are actually using them now [2009], but in addition, we will see a handful of guys experiment with them as gamers. It'll be the guys who played with Ping wedges in college, some of the regular Ping staff players who mess around with them in Scottsdale, etc. Will that be a problem? Even if the number doubled, to a dozen. Will that be a problem?"
I suspect that no one sitting at the table would have thought so. Even if the lunch group were expanded, to include John Feinstein, Alex Micelli, Mike Stachura and E. Michael Johnson, John Hawkins and Tim Rosaforte; the objective facts would not have been disturbing to anyone.
"Profusely bleeding from a paper cut." That's very good.
Chuck-PING's done nothing wrong, I understand you don't like PING, thats fine. PING won the suit, boo hooo, get over it.
Great question.
The short answer (there is no short answer but I'll try) is this.
Ping had submitted the original U-groove Eye 2 to the USGA to be tested. It was acceptable.
Then, Ping changed the design. And innocent change, they thought. They merely "radiused" or rounded off the groove edges, apparently as an accomodation to complaints that they were shredding balatas. In making the change, Ping did not intend to cheat, or even to push the envelope. Ping therefore did not submit the club to the USGA for testing. Ping didn't think there was any need. They put the club into production, and Tour players like Bob Gilder and Ken Green among many others put them into play. This club is what Ping calls the "Radius U-Groove Eye 2."
The problem was this; those radiused edges had eaten into the "landed" space or the flat part of the clubface. The USGA had a rule (a very technical one) on that, and the USGA felt that the new groove configuration violated that rule. By the USGA's calculation, for which they had a good case, the club did violate that rule. The groove-edges were too close to each other. Reluctantly, the USGA felt as though it had to act. A little violation is still a violation in golf.
After the USGA informed Ping of its finding, Ping sued. (Later, the PGA Tour also said they would bar any use of the Ping Eye 2, and Ping sued the Tour in a separate case.) And in Ping's favor, they made the point that the USGA's measurement of the landed area could only be made by one particular arbitrarily-selected dimension -- an angle that bisected the radius. The angle had been selected by the USGA. Ping said it was selected after the fact.
So the USGA had some points in its favor. As did Ping. Neither side wanted to bet the farm on winning at trial. So they settled.
And that, if you can believe it, is the short version.
Hate to say it but for once I agree with Finchem.
Finchem stated, " Any player is entitled under these rules to play a Ping Eye 2 wedge designed before 1990 if he so chooses. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing that violates the rule..."
He used the word DESIGNED, not MANUFACTURED, MADE or SOLD.
My question then, could a player, say one on the level of Mickelson, have Ping produce a number of new wedges that are MADE today based on that DESIGN and then be allowed to use them in tournament play? Based SOLELY on what Finchem said it would seem to be so...
You were right, Phil, to catch Finchem on his inartful choice of words.
Q. May a player use a golf club with a groove spacing to groove width ratio of 2.3 to 1, if that club was manufactured before March 31, 1990, even though Appendix II 5c(i) requires that the groove spacing to groove width ratio must be no less than 3 to 1?
A. Yes. It is, however, the responsibility of the player to provide proof of the date on which the club was manufactured. If the player cannot provide such proof, the club must conform with the specifications described in Appendix II 5c(i).
You keep yammering about how Ping would have been bankrupted. Is that waht John Solheim says? Why? What claim did the USGA have against Karsten Mfg.? (Wait, I'll answer that one; Nothing. The USGA wanted nothing from Karsten.)
So what is it? What would have been ruinous for PIng?
I know that you realize that Ping quickly changed the kind of gooves on the Ping Eye 2+, immediately went right back into the retail market, with compliant grooves, and had continued success in the retail market for irons, right?
And, you say that had the case been taken to trial, and lost by Ping, that Ping's legal bills would have been ruinous, leading to bankruptcy? You base that on what? What were the Karsten Mfg. legal bills?
Why do you think that some kind of replacement program, had one been required for the "Radius U-Groove Eye 2" model, would have been ruinous for Ping? Was such a replacement program ever priced? Was such a program ever even theorized?