"This rule change is great for me."
Phil Mickelson came out very assertive in his press conference today and while I believe the tone is justified in one sense (toward the USGA for making the club conformity subjective), as you'll see I think he's got to work on his case when it comes to the idea of regulation and the intent of the rule.
First, some housekeeping. As Doug Ferguson writes, he's dropping the PING wedge, acknowledging "My point has been made." Oh and by the way, overlooked in all of this: he's going for three straight wins at Riviera, which would have to go down as one of his great career feats if he pulls it off. Hogan didn't do it. Neither did Snead.
Now to the press conference highlights. Phil, let it rip:
In regards to the groove and playing the club and whatnot, I have been very upset over the way the entire groove rule has come about and its total lack of transparency. I'm very upset with the way the rule came about, the way one man essentially can approve or not approve a golf club based on his own personal decision regardless of what the rule says. This has got to change. To come out and change a rule like this that has a loophole has got to change. It's ridiculous. It hurts the game, and you cannot put the players in a position to interpret what the rule has meant. That's why we have a decisions book, to decide this stuff.
This should have been decided well before this came out. It put me and it put all players in a bad spot, and it needs to be changed. This rule-making process needs to be changed.
So the background on that is here. Phil's right, and the USGA's subjective approach is a problem.
Here's where Phil's case begins to weaken a bit. Jaime Diaz asks:
Q. In a perfect world would you have preferred the rule was left alone so that the new grooves out there in 1990 were the ones instituted, or would you have liked a roll-back?
PHIL MICKELSON: I think it was a ridiculous rule change and even worse timing. It's cost manufacturers millions of dollars. It continues to cost them money as we now have to hire people to scan, document and store data of every club of every groove on every single club. It was unnecessary. It was an attempt to show power. And the arbitrary judgment of one man can take a conforming club and rule it non-conforming based on his emotion, this type of lack of transparency has got to change. It's killing the sport. It's killing the manufacturers, the players. We don't understand the rule, and it needs to be changed.
I'm hoping and believing now that the pressure has been put on by the Commissioner, by the PGA TOUR, by the manufacturers that this won't be tolerated anymore.
Q. So even if it had been a really efficiently-run rule change, you still don't think it was necessary, that there was no need to go back to V-grooves so to speak?
PHIL MICKELSON: Not only was it not necessary, the timing of it was terrible.
And here's where I chimed in:
Q. Do you understand the USGA's position that they're trying to put an emphasis back on skill in doing that through this groove rule change or perhaps some other modification? Are you opposed to any kind of effort on their part to protect skill?
PHIL MICKELSON: This rule change is great for me. It's great for me. But that doesn't mean it's right. You have to remove yourself as a player and decide is this good for the game, not is this good for me.
Q. How so? Elaborate. How is it good for you?
PHIL MICKELSON: Because first of all, I grew up with V-grooves, I have played V-grooves these last however many years. My clubs from last year are legal. It's no change for me, other than a wedge, but even that's nominal. It's no change. Guys who have never played them have a big adjustment to make. Reading lies, deciding how the ball is going to come out could take a long time to learn that, and being an older player and growing up with those clubs and not having to change those clubs in my bag, I have a huge advantage. But it doesn't mean it's right.
Q. All those things you listed, though, add interesting elements to the game and are all skill related, emphasize experience, a lot of different elements. So in a sense you are being rewarded for your skill, so can't you see why the USGA was trying to do what they were doing?
PHIL MICKELSON: Just because it was good for me doesn't mean it was good or it's right.
So Phil's admitting that as an incredibly skilled player, he stands to benefit from this rule change. Which then would seem to validate what the USGA was trying to do. That doesn't mean their execution was perfect, but based on what Mickelson is saying, they will have an impact in preserving the role of skill. Yet, he seems opposed to that for reasons he won't fully elaborate on.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 09:10 PM 20 Comments | in 2010 Northern Trust Open, Grooves, Phil Mickelson, State of the Game, USGA
Reader Comments (20)
Boy, never has a nickname suited someone as much as this one suits Mickelson. Me, me, me. No rooom left to answer the goddam questions he was asked.
His lips are moving, but I reckon the noise is coming from somewhere else.
Reminds me of the dog with its head stuck in the speaker of the gramaphone.........His Masters Voice
Sad to see another great player reduced to this
What a pompous, know-it-all, busybody. Leave the equipment disagreements to the manufacturers, the Tour, and the USGA. He played that Ping wedge last week for only one reason: to make a point.
Disgusting.
Some of us know why Loud Mouth Phil has an opinion on EVERYTHING except Tiger's sex scandal. You've stayed uncharacteristically quiet on that subject, haven't you, Phil?
I think Phil has done an amazing job of putting this issue up front and center and thereby speeding up the process for a decision/resolution for closing the loophole. Still be a long time coming but certainly faster than if Phil hadn't done what he did. Remember Daly and Wilson played the wedge weeks before Mickelson but the firestorm only ensued once Phil showed up.
What's wrong with making a point? Especially when it's a good one...
You metion that "I would suspect the youngest players would not say much."
Except for Rory McIlroy who wants the groove rule changed back.
http://www.pga.com/2010/news/europeantour/02/02/rory.grooves.ap/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnac_the_Magnificent
Phil Mickelson probably knows that too...but to your point, the man is insufferable. I say that from personal experience, and it was not a pleasant experience. There's a reason he's one of the least popular guys among his peers on the Tour.
But, enough about Phil. He does plenty of that himself. Hence, his nickname: FIGJAM.
As for the FIGJAM nickname, Phil's erstwhile opponents who use it also have a nickname, or should: FIJHBMSAMOTDT.
None of those top 3 guys mentioned like each other, it's all mutual between Phil _ Tiger _ Vijay.
This article suggests that Phil is close with Rocco Mediate and Lee Janzen, for starters. I too think Phil is a bit of a blowhard but I don't think he's as unliked as a lot of people on this board would like us to believe...hell, if Rocco is close with Phil he can't be that bad.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HFI/is_11_53/ai_99326457/?tag=content;col1
I always hear how unpopular Phil is on Tour, but I have heard guys like Furyk, Rocco, Calc, Chris Riley and others call him a friend. When billy Mayfair woke up in the hospital after surgery, Phil was there. McCord and Kostis seem to like the guy.
He may not be universailly loved, but he is not universally hated either.
FIJHBMSAMOTDT
F*ckI'mJealousHeBeatsMySorryAssMostOfTheDamnedTime
There was not one single mention of the proposed groove rule change in Callaway's (ELY) 2008 Annual Report to shareholders (Groove rule change was announced Feb 2007). There was a generic risk stating that sales may be affected if future rules prohibit the use of current Callaway clubs, which the groove rule clearly allowed a grace period for non-Championship play. The annual report also states that Callaway's clubs work on a 2 yr life cycle and most of the sales occur in the 1st year.
The R&D cost #s.
2004 - $30.5MM
2005 - $26.9MM
2006 - $26.7MM
2007 - $32.0MM
2008 - $29.3MM
I suppose Callaway could say that more of the R&D money was spent on assisting the professionals in '07. This seems unlikely because if it were the case one would expect that to be disclosed to shareholders and Callaway's report describes a 2 yr selling cycle of the newest products.
Another explanation would be that all the costs were spent in 2009. This seems unlikely given the announcement in early '07 that Callaway did nothing for 21 months.
Do they really believe that bifurcation will kill the recreational player? Perhaps reducing prices will spur additional demand.
http://www.annualreports.com/partners/Report/17141
"...we now have to hire people to scan, document and store data of every club of every groove on every single club."
Set aside for the moment where that curious alleged requirment came from.
Did you get that? "We." "We," as in, "We shareholders, executives and board members of Callaway Golf..."
I'd like to know the total amount of groove R&D, compared to Callaway's payments and perks to Phil Mickelson, Inc.