Ping Wedges and the 1993 Solheim agreement

[Emp]

The uproar over the Ping pre-1993 wedges with the square grooves seems stupid to me, and I blame the USGA and Solheim. Everone is looking bad, including Lefty.

I think its good that the USGA wants to return to an emphasis on shotmaking, and not have the game based on advantages from clubs, balls or other equipment. The way they did it, however, was foolish in view of the technical legality of the Ping wedge.

First, the Solheim suit to compel the USGA to conform its rules to some manufacturer's equipment begs the entire freedom of association issue. The USGA and the NCAA and national association of widget manufacturers are voluntary organizations. If you don't want to join, don't. If you don't like the rules and want to start your own association, do so. Suits like that drive me crazy, and I'm a litigation attorney.

That said, if you lose a lawsuit or enter into a consent decree, you live with the consequences. Unless you can get Ping's agreement to stop insisting clubs manufactured before 1993 can be used, don't change the rules so that only squaregroove Pings can be used.

Third, its time for Solheim to back off of its 1993 consent order. It's just chickenshit to continue to insist, 25 years later, that these clubs can be used at the highest level to the exclusion of all other squaregroove clubs.

Lefty (and anyone else using the old Pings) is "legal", but its not the game of golf or sportsmanship as I know it.

[bobbiemcgee]

" think its good that the USGA wants to return to an emphasis on shotmaking, and not have the game based on advantages from clubs, balls or other equipment. The way they did it, however, was foolish in view of the technical legality of the Ping wedge."

That ship has long since sailed imho. Case in point: I bought a new "Toaster" driver (legal)and use the big tees now. I drive 35-60 yds. longer. The courses aren't any longer. Advantage: Duffer.

[Emp]

I'm of two minds on the drivers. If you can control it and keep it in the fairway, seems like at fair trade. If, however, you can fire away, spray into the rough, and then use squaregrooved wedges to bail you out of the rough without penalty, that's not golf anymore to me. There is no premium on accuracy and shot making, and its just a birdie and eagle fest for the scratch golfers and pros (I'm not, but I like to watch them solve problems.)

Of course I think playing golf in carts and not walking is nice recreation, but not sport.

[boozehound]

The problem I see is that there is a big disconnect between the pro and the average golfer. The average golfer needs square grooves, big drivers, and game improvment clubs. Your average golfer never breaks par on 18 holes of regulation golf in their life. The average golfer doesn't have the swing speed to put any kind of excessive spin on the ball regardless of what kind of wedge they are using.

Golf is a frustrating enough game for both the beginner, intermediate, and I am sure for the advanced and pro golfer as well.

I was, and am, against rolling back the grooves. I will continue to play my Vokey Spin Milled wedges. When they wear out I hope I can by another set. I don't have to play what the pros play, but a lot of golfers do. The last thing that I want as a golfer is even slower play on public courses because the average weekend hacker is struggling more becuase he is using the new V-Grooves like the pros. I also don't mind watching the pros make birdies and eagles. It doesn't bother me like it seems to bother some folks. I am also younger and have only been playing golf for a few years, so that is probably shaping my decision.

That being said, if square grooves are banned square grooves are banned and no manufacturer should have an exception.

[bobbiemcgee]

[QUOTE=TheEmperorHasNoClothes;171553]
Of course I think playing golf in carts and not walking is nice recreation, but not sport.[

Don't confuse golf with sports, it's just a game.

[Jumpy]

The problem I see is that there is a big disconnect between the pro and the average golfer. The average golfer needs square grooves, big drivers, and game improvment clubs. Your average golfer never breaks par on 18 holes of regulation golf in their life. The average golfer doesn't have the swing speed to put any kind of excessive spin on the ball regardless of what kind of wedge they are using.

Golf is a frustrating enough game for both the beginner, intermediate, and I am sure for the advanced and pro golfer as well.

I was, and am, against rolling back the grooves. I will continue to play my Vokey Spin Milled wedges. When they wear out I hope I can by another set. I don't have to play what the pros play, but a lot of golfers do. The last thing that I want as a golfer is even slower play on public courses because the average weekend hacker is struggling more becuase he is using the new V-Grooves like the pros. I also don't mind watching the pros make birdies and eagles. It doesn't bother me like it seems to bother some folks. I am also younger and have only been playing golf for a few years, so that is probably shaping my decision.

That being said, if square grooves are banned square grooves are banned and no manufacturer should have an exception.

I agree with this to an extent, but if a golfer is hacking it up to the point where they are slowing play, it doesn't matter what's in their bag. They will suck it up with all the latest technology in the world. In order to see a benefit from something like squared grooves, you have to at least have a small amount of control over your swing.

[boozehound]

I agree with this to an extent, but if a golfer is hacking it up to the point where they are slowing play, it doesn't matter what's in their bag. They will suck it up with all the latest technology in the world. In order to see a benefit from something like squared grooves, you have to at least have a small amount of control over your swing.

This is definitely a very good point. If you are a total hacker it doesn't matter what kind of club you are using, you are pretty much going to suck equally. Grooves have nothing to do with it if you aren't capable of putting a decent swing on the ball.

If you are a 90's golfer though, you aren't breaking par on 18 holes so the game isn't too easy for you (as some argue it is for the pros) and you probably have a good enough swing to derive some benefit from groove technology. Those are the kind of golfers that I think this may hurt. It may not though.

One interesting factoid is that the average USGA handicap hasn't really gone down significantly in the last 10 years, even with the advances in equipment, so maybe it doesn't matter at all to the average golfer.

[TheDanimal]

As someone who worked in club fitting, club repair, and sales for years and probably sold some clubs to folks on this board, I can offer a few interesting thoughts.

Manufacturers (with the exception of one or two) do not care about the average golfer. The major brands drive profit margins through developing clubs professionals want to use. The average golf consumer is wealthy, unrealistic, and will want similar clubs for the recognition and prestige, regardless of whether they are a proper fit (which drove me crazy at work). For manufacturers, as long as the clubs go out the door, there is no need to care whether purchasers can actually hit them on the course. In fact, if the customer cannot, it actually becomes more likely he will return to buy different clubs.

This model has undergone some change over the past 5-10 years, partially due to the rise in general popularity of Adams Golf. Adams' focus on the senior tour and game improvement gear for less than perfect golfers forced the hands of the other brands to come up with answers (see Titleist's rejuvenated investment in its Cobra line). With Nike and Taylor Made following suit, the pendulum has begun to swing back to the major players, where they will use game improvement sets to drive sales into tour models. Callaway has always been a bit of a duffers' brand (thick club edges and closed heads on most clubs) so they are actually moving in the opposite direction and trying to introduce more tour quality clubs.

However, any game improvement concepts with wedges are out the window. For the big names, wedges are a tour recognition game. Since it is the most touch driven club, there really is no meaningful way to alter it for different levels. Thus, when the PGA bans certain groove dimensions, the manufacturers will not expend the time/money to make a non-conforming series for amateurs because the market simply is not there. Interestingly enough, Cleveland made a big push to square groove wedges in a recent line a few years ago and it was an epic failure with most consumers knowing of the looming PGA ban. This illustrates that consumers, even in the face of added benefits for amateurs, want to play what the pros play.

That last thing I'll point out is that the loophole is only an issue because it involves Ping, which is the only manufacturer that possesses the capability to produce, at any time, any club it has ever produced. So, for them, allowing the old wedges to have continued conformity is extremely profitable because keeping them in service requires no additional work.

[Smails]

Why did Ping stop making the berrilium (sp?) irons? I thought they were told that they weren't allowed to manufacture them anymore. I'm curious

As far as the "cheating" and "sportsmanship" issue, I get a kick out of people who say it's not the "spirit of the rule". Give me a friggin break. Golfers actually use the rules of golf to get advantages all the time. Taking legal relief and creating a better shot by doing so is a practice that savvy golfers do all the time. Is that the spirit of the rule?

Craig Stadler was DQ'd for kneeling on a towell so his new pants wouldn't get stained. Well, the spirit of that rule was intended to prevent players from gaining advantage over other golfers by introducing foriegn objects to help their stance. The only advantage Stadler got was one less stain on his pants. He could of easily executed that shot without the towell. Instead he was DQ'd because you have to follow the rules..literally.

If the rule says Ping Wedges are legal...then they're legal. Take issue with the PGA and Ping...not the players who abide by the rules.

[XUglow]

Perfect comments, Smails.

Not many people remember that Tiger dominated the game in 2000 mostly because he had by far the best golf ball available. It was totally legal but not available to the general public. Nike engineers crafted a ball perfectly to suit Tiger and his clubs. Tiger was fantastic, but the Nike that he played was vastly superior to the Titleist ball that was in vogue at the time. When Titleist came out with the Pro V1 in late 2000, Tiger was at least in reach of the rest of the field. Did Tiger cheat? No. Did he take advantage of superior technology? You bet.

[boozehound]

Why did Ping stop making the berrilium (sp?) irons? I thought they were told that they weren't allowed to manufacture them anymore. I'm curious

As far as the "cheating" and "sportsmanship" issue, I get a kick out of people who say it's not the "spirit of the rule". Give me a friggin break. Golfers actually use the rules of golf to get advantages all the time. Taking legal relief and creating a better shot by doing so is a practice that savvy golfers do all the time. Is that the spirit of the rule?

Craig Stadler was DQ'd for kneeling on a towell so his new pants wouldn't get stained. Well, the spirit of that rule was intended to prevent players from gaining advantage over other golfers by introducing foriegn objects to help their stance. The only advantage Stadler got was one less stain on his pants. He could of easily executed that shot without the towell. Instead he was DQ'd because you have to follow the rules..literally.

If the rule says Ping Wedges are legal...then they're legal. Take issue with the PGA and Ping...not the players who abide by the rules.


I think you are right, smails. I believe that Ping had to stop making the becu clubs for some reason. Maybe some kind safety or raw material issue? I don't really know what berrylium is, so I can't comment on it's suitability for club making. I do know that many people loved the becu Pings.

I also loved you part about the 'spirt of the rule'. A lot of golf's rules are pretty ridiculous if you really think about them. I follow them, but they are ridiculous sometimes. Heck, every issue of Golf Digest has the 'Rules Guy' column that almost always contains at least on tip on how to exploit the rules for your advantage.

[TheDanimal]

They stopped making the beryllium wedges because the dust of the metal caused serious lung problems. Thus, anyone who manufactured the wedges or did club work later on them (sole grinding, re-grooving, reshafting, etc) faced the possibility of inhaling the stuff and getting sick / dying.

[boozehound]

They stopped making the beryllium wedges because the dust of the metal caused serious lung problems. Thus, anyone who manufactured the wedges or did club work later on them (sole grinding, re-grooving, reshafting, etc) faced the possibility of inhaling the stuff and getting sick / dying.

Aha! I thought that there was some kind of safety reason. Thanks for the insight Danimal. I never knew you were in the golf business. That is cool.

[bobbiemcgee]

I agree with this to an extent, but if a golfer is hacking it up to the point where they are slowing play, it doesn't matter what's in their bag. They will suck it up with all the latest technology in the world. In order to see a benefit from something like squared grooves, you have to at least have a small amount of control over your swing.

I like to play poorly fast.

[chico]

Perfect comments, Smails.

Not many people remember that Tiger dominated the game in 2000 mostly because he had by far the best golf ball available. It was totally legal but not available to the general public. Nike engineers crafted a ball perfectly to suit Tiger and his clubs. Tiger was fantastic, but the Nike that he played was vastly superior to the Titleist ball that was in vogue at the time. When Titleist came out with the Pro V1 in late 2000, Tiger was at least in reach of the rest of the field. Did Tiger cheat? No. Did he take advantage of superior technology? You bet.

Jack Nicklaus has gone on record as saying that the ball, and not the equipment, is more to blame for making golf easier for the pros. The clubs sure help but the balls are so much better now.