[Rqvtwlfk]

Statement by Ping Chairman and CEO John Solheim
February 1, 2010

In response to the on-going discussion and miscommunication relating to 2010 Groove Regulation and the use of PING EYE2 irons manufactured prior to April 1, 1990, PING Chairman & CEO John Solheim issued the following statement today:

"Over the last several weeks we've watched with great interest the impact of the PING EYE2 and its role in the USGA's 2010 Groove Regulation. We've read and heard numerous inaccurate reports from various sources, including several PGA Tour Professionals, about the new groove regulation, specifically that "U" or "Square" grooves are "banned" as part of the regulation. As the USGA states on its website:

"A common misconception is that "V" shaped grooves will be required under the new specifications and that "U" shaped grooves will no longer be allowed. This is not the case."

This misconception has contributed to PING EYE2 irons being characterized as "non-conforming" or "illegal" and has created a division among many of the players on the PGA Tour.

We're thankful that the PGA Tour helped clarify this issue in a statement last weekend:

"Under the Rules of Golf and the 2010 Condition of Competition for Groove Specifications promulgated by the USGA, pre-1990 Ping Eye 2 irons are permitted for play and any player who uses them in PGA TOUR sanctioned events taking place in jurisdictions of the USGA is not in violation of the Rules of Golf; and

Because the use of pre-1990 Ping Eye 2 irons is permitted for play, public comments or criticisms characterizing their use as a violation of the Rules of Golf as promulgated by the USGA are inappropriate at best."

Naturally, this entire episode takes us back more than 20 years when our company took a stand against both the USGA and PGA Tour over their attempts to ban PING EYE2 irons because of the grooves. In an effort to protect the interests of the millions of PING EYE2 owners who had purchased their clubs in good faith and for the good of the game, we negotiated an agreement with the USGA which "grandfathered" all PING EYE2 irons manufactured prior to April 1, 1990.

In 1993, the PGA Tour agreed they "will not in the future adopt or attempt to adopt any separate PGA Tour rule which would prohibit the use of U-grooves on any golf club if such PGA Tour rule differed from a USGA rule."

When the USGA proposed the New Groove Rule more than two years ago, we reminded them of their agreement relative to the PING EYE2 irons. At the time, I was vehemently against any new groove rule for a variety of reasons and advised both the USGA and PGA Tour in a letter dated July 31, 2007 that what is happening on the PGA Tour today was very much a possibility.

The recent statement from the PGA Tour and several PGA Tour players that they could invoke a "local rule" required us to remind the PGA Tour of the terms of the agreement which prohibits them from straying from a rule that "differed from a USGA rule."

While I fully expect the PGA Tour to honor this agreement, I'm willing to discuss a workable solution to this matter that would benefit the game and respect the role innovation has played over the long history of golf."

[dselectronics]

A boilerplate response and one that would be quite expected.

But it falls along the "letter of the law" argument and does not address the "spirit of the game" argument that is very much a part of this issue.

In fact, it could be argued that Ping knows there's an issue with their grooves because of the inclusion of the codicil stating that, "...the PGA Tour agreed they "will not in the future adopt or attempt to adopt any separate PGA Tour rule which would prohibit the use of U-grooves on any golf club if such PGA Tour rule differed from a USGA rule."

Clearly this was included to fend off any assault on Ping's technology as we are witnessing today. What bothers me about this is that the ability of an equipment manufacturer to essentially hogtie a governing body by including such a codicil in a legal agreement essentially marginalizes that governing body and makes Ping a de facto governing body.

In essence, they opened the door for the manufacturers, rather than the PGA and/or USGA to call the shots or at least have a very heavy influence in how rules are crafted and I think that's wrong.

I believe that the PGA should be able to simply state that the new grooves will be the only grooves allowed for competitive play and that there will be no exceptions.

This has the potential for becoming a showdown in regard to who really runs the game of golf.


-JP

[Rqvtwlfk]

I just don't get this spirit of the game BS.This is a competition and only a competition.We need to obtain the best clubs to help win and be successful.That's it.Rules are rules to be followed.We are following the rules.

[Jellowstrom]

You make the bed you sleep in. The clubs are legal, PM, (and others) are not cheating, and McCarron (and others) have that proverbial egg on their face.
Time for the PGA membership to move on, and play some competitive golf. Whining about things is not doing the players, or their game any good.

[dselectronics]

I just don't get this spirit of the game BS.This is a competition and only a competition.We need to obtain the best clubs to help win and be successful.That's it.Rules are rules to be followed.We are following the rules.

I hear you and I understand what you're saying and to a large extent, I agree with you.

But this issue seems to be touching a nerve that's more about ideology than legality. I think people are tired of lawyers and the argument that just because something may be legal doesn't mean that it can't be wrong, or ethical, or any number of things. It's more than just grooves.

I've likened it to something like a guy who blasts his stereo on his patio but plays it just low enough to avoid breaking any noise laws. He's doing something that's perfectly legal, but he's nonetheless annoying the hell out of his neighbors.

You may have a legal right to do something, but that doesn't always mean that it's right to do it.


-JP

[aaaaaaahabbbby]

I pretty much agree and respect the points both of you are making. I'm quickly growing tired of all of this wedge talk. I'm just happy I don't have to worry about it for fourteen more years. As a fan of the tour however, I hope they get together quickly and get it sorted out before the court has to once again get involved.

[kvitacencia]

Ping must be ecstatic right now though with all the extra publicity they're getting.

[robstamps]

I like how the USGA and the PGA tour officials seem to forget to mention how this whole thing started. This was a fight they had 20 years ago and is not something new.

[Gskdmidd]

I've likened it to something like a guy who blasts his stereo on his patio but plays it just low enough to avoid breaking any noise laws. He's doing something that's perfectly legal, but he's nonetheless annoying the hell out of his neighbors.

You may have a legal right to do something, but that doesn't always mean that it's right to do it.


-JP

I agree that it was a bad idea to include that language in the 20-year old settlement agreement, but of course, the governing parties are partly to blame for that as well.

Your analogy above, however, is not a fair comparison. The impact of the new rule is more akin to a player going to his touring van to adjust the lofts, shafts, heads and other parts of the clubs to obtain optimal performance whilst staying within the rules. Practically every player has the opportunity to make these adjustments to their equipment. If one player chooses not to use the benefits of the touring van, that is fine... but why blame the other professional for using the touring van to benefit their game while still adhering to the rules that are applicable to all on tour.

Why should the guy actually playing by the rules be forced to "adapt" to another's arbitrary view of what is wrong or right? Shouldn't the guy who is advocating for something other than the rules be the guy who should "adapt"? One guy might think that a permissible graphite shaft in one of his clubs is better for his game; is it wrong for him to choose to use that permissible shaft when other players think that a steel shaft is more appropriate for golf? Why should the guy with steel shafts be annoyed? Similarly, why is it wrong to use an old-school ping wedge when everyone has the opportunity to do so?

[ljq0AYOV]

You make the bed you sleep in. The clubs are legal, PM, (and others) are not cheating, and McCarron (and others) have that proverbial egg on their face.

That's not even close. Mickelson is on the defensive, along with others who foolishly choose the same route. I was thrilled that McCarron didn't back down yesterday. In fact, his follow up was actually even more of a dagger. I would have loved to have seen Phil's squirmy reaction.

Did you see his Mickelson's face on Saturday, during the hysterical threats of a slander lawsuit? It could not have been more drawn or flush or troubled. I couldn't wait for the final round betting props to show up so I could wager against him. That wasn't even a sweat.

I've evaluated the mental aspect of sports long enough to know you can't undervalue a clear mind, or a clean reputation. Phil should be chasing the apex of his game, with only a few prime years remaining as he nears 40. Instead, he's got a senseless issue hovering over him. He can't benefit. But it's classic Phil, over thinking a simple situation.

The Ping statement is most predictable of all, corporate non-speak.

[dselectronics]

Your analogy above, however, is not a fair comparison. The impact of the new rule is more akin to a player going to his touring van to adjust the lofts, shafts, heads and other parts of the clubs to obtain optimal performance whilst staying within the rules. Practically every player has the opportunity to make these adjustments to their equipment. If one player chooses not to use the benefits of the touring van, that is fine... but why blame the other professional for using the touring van to benefit their game while still adhering to the rules that are applicable to all on tour.

That's a fair argument and I definitely see your point.

But let's look at it another way.

The fact that "a lot of guys" went to Ping Eye 2 wedges tells me that though they may be conforming (or at least not proveably illegal), there must be something about the grooves on those wedges that are more "spinny" than the currently allowed grooves. To me, if there's a perception that those wedges will offer an advantage over the grooves which are now in play, then that is not in the spirit of the rule change and suggests that those who choose to use them are gaining an unfair advantage in doing so.

This may not be "what it is", but I think it's "what it suggests".

In a larger sense, it seems to me that guys like Phil have become so addicted to the spin potential of modern wedges that they simply cannot bring themselves to use wedges with the new grooves and are doing whatever they can, in any way they can, to maintain their "spin superiority". Seems more juvenile to me than anything else. Sort of like some kid stamping his feet and crying: "No, I want my spin and you're not going to take it away from me!"

Further, it suggests that Phil - who is arguably one of the best short-game players in the world - may only be so because of those spinny grooves and that if he were to use the new grooves, then he may no longer be able to have that renowned short-game.

From a fan's point of view, I'd rather see him play the new grooves and be as good as he ever was because then I and many others would be sure that he really is that good and not just because of what kind of wedge he used.

Overall, I think that this whole mess just casts a pall over the PGA and the game itself by demonstrating that its best players are really little more than hustlers looking to gain whatever advanyage they can and that the whole "integrity and sportsmanship" reputation is just a bunch of publicity-speak.

I think this has the potential to damage the game and if that happens then guys like Phil may have won their battle but they will have lost the war and that would be a shame.


-JP

[connandoilee]

What a flap this has turned into. The USGA and PGA created this mess 20 years ago when they tried to single out Ping and their square grooves for banishment. Karsten Solhiem did the only thing he could for his company and sued to keep his clubs from becoming unsaleable. The court order stopped them, but the wording has come back to haunt them here years later.

The USGA has not specifically picked a groove design as conforming from what I have read, it only says what cannot be used. If they pick a single groove design, they are open for another lawsuit as each manufacturer probably wants the flexibility to tweak their grooves within this new ruling. We have a very bad situation here and I believe we are going to be faced with something similar every time the USGA tries to limit technology. So far they have been pretty ineffective and I believe they will continue along this path.

[Bugamerka]

I consider this to be much ado about nothing. Whatever small advantage is to be gained by using the groove configuration of the Ping Eye2 wedges is probably offset by the inferior weight distribution of that technology compared to today's clubs. I have a feeling that several players will try the Eye2's, not many if any will stick with them. I get the distinct impression that the only club where the grooves make much difference is the 64 degree wedge, which few employ anyway.

[Bugamerka]

Now Phil has put them aside - I think this will shortly be a non-issue.

[dselectronics]

Now Phil has put them aside - I think this will shortly be a non-issue.

I wouldn't bet on that.

Phil said he'd put them aside for this week and that if the "governing bodies" didn't reach some sort of agreement, that he would once again use the Ping's.

The thing that surprised me is that I thought that there were dozens of players using these wedges when in fact it turns out that there are only five. That suggests that the rest of the Tour understands what the new grooves are all about and they don't seem to have any problem with using them and only five players, led by Phil, are trying to make some kind of point, the nature of which is still very unclear.

Phil further complicated things by saying that “I’ve 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”.

Which, to me, is exactly the same thing that Phil is doing right now and the intent of his actions seems to be directed at Finchem because he apparently has some more personal issues with him and that the "Grooves" are just a means flushing him out.

Then Phil added to the confusion by saying, “If there’s no pressure among these organizations to make changes, I will immediately put the club back in play,” which seems to me to be throwing even more fuel on the fire - especially since Phil has not specifically stated what these "changes" ought to be or why they're necessary.

There's a lot more to this than just grooves and I doubt that this will go away anytime soon.


-JP