Often when I read articles about seemingly goofy rules decisions, the comment is made that golfers should know the rules so that they can take advantage of them given the opportunity.
simply not true, Callaway pays Mickelson to play Callaway clubs, and I am sure they are not pleased that Ping is getting all this publicity, nor are they pleased that they cannot design a club that Phil can play.
Mickelson claims that Callaway has submitted clubs to the USGA that meets specs, but USGA has not approved them for play. Rumors are that after testing, the USGA says the balls spin too much. Basically, Callaway says the USGA is moving the goalposts.
Most players are not required their sponsors clubs exclusively. Tiger doesn’t use all Nike clubs. Tiger’s normal putter is a Titleist and it has a ping grip on it.
What we haven’t heard yet, is the USGA side of the story. I would really like to know if “conforming” clubs been rejected by the USGA.
As I indicated, this is not correct. There is no such language in the rule.
The USGA is bound by a settlement of a court case with Karsten Manufacturing, in which they agreed not to subject certain clubs manufactured by Kartsten to their rules about iron grooves. That settlement still applies, and if the USGA tried to apply the amended rule on grooves to the old clubs, they would violate that settlement. This is what allows Lefty (and others: note that it was not Lefty to started the use of the clubs, but rather John Daly and someone else the week before in Hawaii) to use them without fear of sanction.
But the new rule does not mention them, and there is no express exemption in the rule.
Well, now, that might be a matter of opinion. After all, that’s exactly what got the USGA and Karsten Manufacturing into a battle back in the late 1980s. The USGA issued some specs to try and establish how far apart grooves could be. At the time, the Ping irons were the first to use “U” grooves, as I recall. The USGA wanted to say they were non-conforming because the outer edge of the groove, where it got back to being “flat” with the surface of the iron, was too close to the next groove. Karsten responded that the USGA specs, interpreted according to standard engineering practices, met the rule because they measured at a different place (too technical to explain). The USGA ruled the clubs non-conforming, and Karsten sued, and the rest is history.
So it is quite possible that this is another case of that: Calloway is interpreting the specifications of “legality” one way, to try and maximize the spin of the clubs, and the USGA wants to interpret the regs restrictively. There may be another lawsuit if the USGA stays restrictive. And this time, the USGA might go all the way, since legal theory on anti-trust has turned sharply pro-business, rather than pro-protection.
Personally, I hope there is another lawsuit, but the last part of this sentence confuses me. I am not sure what you mean by the USGA going “all the way”.
If anti-trust theory is pro-business, wouldn’t that benefit Callaway (or other club manufacturer?) and not the USGA?
No, here the “business” is the USGA, which wants to act in a way that stifles competition, and Calloway is the consumer, which wants to be able to avoid the effects of a monopoly.
Last time, the USGA avoided taking the issue to trial, because at the time, a very strong protectionist viewpoint existed in the federal courts; anything seen as resembling anti-competitive behavior was stomped out. That was the era of the AT&T bust up, the anti-IBM suit, etc. Now, not so much, so the USGA might try to enforce their rule, even if Calloway (or someone else) sues on the basis that it violates anti-trust law.
They are selling on ebay used for around $ 80.00 each.
I hate Phil. He’s a big, whiny tub of goo with saggy man-breasts. However, I don’t think he’s “cheating”. He’s taking advantage of a situation that benefits him. Who wouldn’t? The square grooves are apparently something that Phil gets better spin and control of the ball with.
A bigger question (and one I didn’t see addressed in the thread) is how did the USGA lose a lawsuit pertaining to equipment that can and can’t be used in its own sport?
This, to me, seems to be a fundamental right of a sports governing body: to determine the type of equipment that is and isn’t permitted to be used during the course of the event.
What happened?
They didn’t lose; they settled the case. But they certainly thought they were likely to lose, given the way the case settled. IIRC, the only reason Karsten Manufacturing withdrew its damages claim and didn’t require payment of money in settlement was that somewhere along the line during the suit, one of the engineers for the USGA showed Karsten how to manufacture what the USGA was asking for in a way that saved Karsten beaucoup bucks.
The legal theory was anti-trust law. Specifically, by attempting to regulate what clubs could and could not be sold on the market (since the USGA is the sport’s governing body), they were attempting to freeze out a specific manufacturer. The technicalities of the action aren’t worth getting into (anti-trust has some complexities); suffice it to say that the commentators at the time were worried that the result of the case would be that the USGA couldn’t set club specifications at all. IIRC, the PGA was involved as well; I’m not sure any more how they ended their participation in the mess.
This is very interesting to me… Thanks for the quick summary. I still don’t see why the manufacturers had a leg to stand on. I’m sure there are details that aren’t clear to me, but let’s say that the aluminum baseball bat company Easton wanted to put their product in the Major Leagues. They would not be permitted. So, they could sue?
Any club manufacturer that made square groove club heads could easily make the regulation club heads. I guess I’ll need to do some research on this one to see what the problem was.
DSY - you keep mentioning “the spirit of the rule,” but have not commented as to the “spirit of the rules” WRT Tiger’s “loose impediment” boulder, or “constructing a stance” by kneeling on a towel.
I was not aware that interpretation of any “spirit” was appropriate in the interpretation of golf’s rules. (Which is one reason I think many of them are downright silly when applied to recreational golfers!)
I can rephrase what I said, but the gist of the issue doesn’t change. He CAN use the club and he CANNOT be penalized for it.
So, can any player on the tour do what Mickleson is doing? Can they all just grab the same club (type of club) and have at it like he does?
Would depend on each player’s endorsement contracts. Periodically there are flurries of commentary when a big name player switches brand loyalty for big bucks. ISTR Lefty was criticized for saying Tiger was playing with inferior equipment (Nike).
Endorsements are styled all different ways. One I find curious, is that Nike players don’t wear any logos on their clothes other than Nike. And I always find it interesting tio see what the pros have in their bags. Some have an incredible mix of manufacturers’ products.
When I used to get GolfWeek, each week the ball and club makers would advertise based on whether or not “their guy” won the previous week.
Yes, anyone can use a Ping Eye 2 club. Reports are that Fred Couples and Padraig Harrington will be using the PE2 club in this weeks tournament. They are not commonplace, but certainly anyone should be able to find them. I found about 5 in my little network of golf when I made a few calls last weekend.
There are a set of PE2 in my spare room right now.
http://www.cbssports.com/golf/story/12874468/shotgun-start-ben-turns-off-the-cranium-mickelson-mccarron-back-forth It is not subsiding. MCarron went at Phil again. The guys in this article seem to think the waffling PGA has to take the blame.
Wonder if Scotty “Mr. Clean” McCarron ever used his long putter to measure off a 2-club relief? 
That too is legal.
Sure it is. But think of the “spirit” of the rule! 
Dinsdale, what part of my repeated assertions that Phil Mickelson is doing nothing wrong have you failed to comprehend?? :smack:
Let me make it perfectly plain:
PHIL MICKELSON IS DOING NOTHING WRONG. He is allowed to use the clubs, because the USGA (and by extension, the PGA) cannot preclude him from using them, despite the fact they are non-conforming.
There, do you comprehend my statement now? :rolleyes:
To make it, thus, perfectly plain: the “spirit” of the rule is meaningless in golf. It is the letter of the rule that matters. Golfers routinely apply the rule to the letter in doing things like taking relief, because the “spirit” of the rule is not applicable. That can, as noted, cut both ways. Putting the towel down to keep your knees from getting wet isn’t intended to “build” a stance, but although that action didn’t violate the spirit of the rule, it violated the letter of the rule and was penalized.
Which does not mean Phil isn’t violating the spirit of the rule; it simply means that the answer to that charge is, as I stated PLAINLY before: So what?
As for Tiger’s boulder (which I had forgotten about), I was opposed to allowing that at the time. To me, a “loose” impediment should be something the player himself can easily pick up and move. I think that was definitionally wrong. But that is neither here nor there for this situation.