Ping May Be Beating the New Grooves Rule

by Ryan Ballengee on Jan 13, 2009 12:26 PM EST Comment 41 comments

David Dawsey maintains Golf Patents.com - THE site if you are an equipment geek looking to see what's coming next before it comes. Forget the TaylorMade R9 for a minute and take a look at this patent application from Ping's parent company for new iron grooves.

This is some wild stuff. The drawings below are basically representing grooves within grooves. Remember, the USGA regulations on grooves (set to kick in for 2010 for competition and, really, 2024 for you and I) talks about the "cross sectional area" of a groove. But, the ruling says nothing about what's actually in the groove.

Ping claims that the grooves in the grooves would help the ball out of different circumstances, much like the U grooves of today do.

Thanks to MyGolfSpy for bringing this to my attention.

0 recs | Comment 41 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: ping, karsten, usga, grooves regulation, u grooves

Comments

not a chance...

…no way the USGA allows this. As creative as it is – the USGA can’t put this sort of thing in play. They have been doing everything they can to roll back the spin coming off of clubs to give the okie-dokie to anything that increases spin again.

patent the idea – but getting it past the USGA and R&A boards isn’t the same thing.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jan 13, 2009 12:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Pointless

I think I’ve said this before, but this kind of thing is pointless. The USGA didn’t regulate grooves for the sake of regulating grooves. Just the same as they didn’t regulate COR for the sake of regulating COR. Same for MOI, head volume, etc. They regulate these things to keep players from shredding up courses.

Bonus points to Ping for being clever with the USGA blueprint they were given to work with, but they lost sight of the overall purpose of that blueprint. If their grooves make the club work like the grooves that will be non-conforming in 2010, then these grooves will be rejected too.

On the other hand, 99% of golfers don’t care whether their clubs are conforming or not, so these companies might just want to stop the wild goose chase and start marketing non-conforming clubs for weekend hackers to duff around.

by Double Eagle on Jan 13, 2009 1:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

that's what got Ping going in the first place.

Ping pulled this sort of thing before with their square grooves – but they got away with it because the clubs were already in play before the USGA and R&A caught on to the affect of the grooves. They won their law suit because the cat was already out of the bag.

At least this time, we have enough testing technology to check into these new ideas before they go into production and play.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jan 13, 2009 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

marketing nightmare

99% may not care, but does anyone think their local golf equipment superstore is going to have a rack of clubs marked “Nonconforming”?

Ping pulls their sponsorship from a Tour player if that player is also sponsored by an adult beverage company (Stacy P.). At the same time they’re filing patents on clubs that circumvent the rules. I smell hypocrisy.

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Jan 13, 2009 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you'd think so, but...

…remember back when Callaway’s drivers had their MOI run in with the USGA ? The R&A had no problem with it – but the USGA declared them nonconforming. When the decision came down, Callaway and stores pulled all the nonconforming drivers and sent them to Europe.

Taylormade had a similar problem a few years ago – they produced two sets of drivers, then released the ones that conformed to the ruling by the USGA and R&A.

About Ping and Stacy P – that’s not hypocrisy. What they are doing with these groove ideas is testing to see if they will be approved. They are not flying in the face of the USGA at this point. If they produced the clubs and sold them after the USGA/R&A declared them nonconforming – THEN they would be hypocritical – but not if they are just testing the waters.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jan 13, 2009 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it's a different day

The USGA and R&A seem to be a lot more united these days when it comes to the rules. They have to be with this push to get golf in the Olympics.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jan 13, 2009 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

thanks to Callaway

that driver controversy was what made them decide to make their conforming/nonconforming lists uniform

I still think golf in the Olympics is a mistake.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jan 13, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I do too

but, there may be some positive side effects.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jan 13, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

why?

Is golf in the Olympics a bad thing? (is there a conversation about this someplace else? – I don’t want to get too far off topic, but would be interested to know).

by red tees on Jan 14, 2009 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd like to see it

I personally would like to see them give it a shot. It may not work out, but I can’t see the harm in trying.

by Double Eagle on Jan 14, 2009 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My theory

is that golf already has Olympic-esque competitions four times per year. And that golf doesn’t need another stroke play event of the same importance as a WGC. I don’t think it would be awful for it to happen, but I don’t think it needs to happen.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jan 14, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What Ryan said.

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Jan 14, 2009 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

huh...

I’ve never really thought of the WGC events as “important” (they are less important to me (the viewer) than the majors) – and I’ve really never thought of them as golfers representing their countries either. But maybe they carry value to the players. Food for thought. I agree with DE, I think it’s worth trying – it’s once every 4 years and the world platform and exposure can’t hurt, can it?

by red tees on Jan 14, 2009 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

There’s a big difference between tournaments having international fields and a tournament where people are representing their nations directly. It doesn’t even have to be a huge affair. It could be as simple as two players from each nation playing in a match tournament and some kind of team event across the two weeks of the olympics.

by Double Eagle on Jan 14, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm more ok with it

If it’s match play. It’s a format that’s not used enough and would be compelling for the Olympics.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jan 14, 2009 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that pretty much says it...

…if the sport’s biggest award ISN’T the Olympic gold medal – then it isn’t an Olympic sport. There is already a world amateur team tournament every year – but they don’t want amateurs – they want pros. Basketball doesn’t belong, neither does hockey anymore – even soccer is borderline with all the pros.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jan 14, 2009 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My beef

…with the Olympics is not pros versus amateurs. It’s the team sports. Traditionally, the Olympics were a mano y mano affair. Golf fits in with that.

I don’t see any need for the correlation between a sport and the Olympics being the biggest venue for it. It’s about representing your nation in a test of sport not necessarily about it being your career defining moment. Golf is perfect for that.

by Double Eagle on Jan 14, 2009 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Olympic Games

It is supposed to represent the highest level of achievement in sports (plus a beacon of sportsmandship and international friendship – but we’ve seen how that has gotten tarnished over the years with cheating, etc.) – hence the beef about it not being the biggest award in professional golf.

I don’t have a problem with the team sports (except that the coach doesn’t get a medal – even though Team USA putting all their medals around Coach K’s neck was a near tear jerker of a moment). Most of the team sports are amateur and they don’t have any higher level to go to – volleyball, team handball, etc.

The ones that bug me are the ones where the winner is based on opinion – skating, gymnastics, diving, boxing, etc. If you can’t keep score – it doesn’t count.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jan 14, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The funny thing is...

I don’t think the motivation behind golf in the Olympics has anything to do with the sport, the players, or the award…I think it has to do with promoting the sport. So it seems to me all the logistics about Amateurs vs. Pros and team vs. individual is secondary to the goal of getting golf out to the masses. And if the Olympic committee sees fit to add the sport for whatever their reasons are, I don’t think it should be passed up. But I’m looking at it from a golf perspective, not the Olympic ideal perspective-from that view, maybe golf doesn’t fit.

I really like the idea of match play – and I like the idea of team as well…maybe it’s just 4 or 6 players, or even 2…

by red tees on Jan 14, 2009 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I meant to say...

format, not sport, in my first sentence…sorry.

by red tees on Jan 14, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

good points...

…with one correction – the Olympic committee doesn’t just pick sports to add – the sports apply to the IOC.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jan 14, 2009 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In the sense

That golf in the Olympics could get some more players…it’s possible. I’m of the mind that one on one introductions to the game are what really get people to pick up clubs and hack it.

About Olympic soccer, it has basically turned into an under 23 (I think that’s the age) tournament now for the very reason Court described.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jan 14, 2009 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes...

I didn’t write that correctly, did I.
I should have said, I think the underlying reason for golf in the Olympics is promoting the sport – the committee requesting adding the sport (which includes Jack Nicklaus and Annika I think) may use all kinds of different reasons…and if that is enough to convince the IOC, then I think it’s great…but ultimately I think it’s about exposure not the actual competion. Thanks for the clarification.

by red tees on Jan 14, 2009 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

having said that...

…I’m not big on the Olympics being a “marketing tool” for a sport.

But my interest in the Games has been dwindling since Munich. I love watching the games, but I hate all the stories of how rich some of these kids are going to be if they win a gold, and all those vignettes just drive me nuts. No offense, ladies, but those are there to get YOU to tune in. Women like the stories, I just want to watch the competition. Between all that “stuff” and all the cheating that goes on with drugs and steroids and judges/referees for sale – it’s just not what it’s supposed to be.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jan 14, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm a sucker...

for all of the backstories…especially the overcoming adversity ones. And I’m also much more interested in the Winter Olympics (but not figure skating) than the Summer so golf would actually give me more of a reason to watch.

I also liked your insight on the sports that are judged by opinion rather than points or time – I never really thought of it before, but they drive me nuts, too!

by red tees on Jan 15, 2009 9:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If I remember correctly...

…didn’t the hot drivers sell like wildfire once word came down and before they were pulled?

by Double Eagle on Jan 14, 2009 12:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was pretty young at the time

But I worked at a driving range and remember them selling very well.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jan 14, 2009 9:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not so much

There was enough controversy at the time that they weren’t really selling big in the US. Some got sold here – but they mostly went to Europe, Japan, and Australia where they were legal. Some people ordered them from European stores.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jan 14, 2009 10:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

After they were

deemed non-conforming, the prices were slashed on them so that they could be unloaded at break even. At least in the shop I was.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jan 14, 2009 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you had an odd store...

…most places either never got them or they were sent back to Callaway and replaced by the conforming version.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jan 14, 2009 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think there's value to Ping

in this. So long as this hypothetical idea meets the regulations for grooves – cross-sectional area and MOI – then it’s approved. That’s it. Now, the USGA may further regulate grooves, but I think this kind of thinking shows that there will have to be absolutes on distance and spin, not on specs.

I think more than 1% of golfers care about specs :) But, I get your point that weekend hackers just want a club in their hand.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jan 13, 2009 1:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

USGA and R&A

have filing cabinets full of “great ideas” that were turned down. I’d bet that they shut this one down saying that a groove isn’t supposed to have anything in it.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jan 13, 2009 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But a year from now...

If the clubs meet the regulations now, that’s great. Crank ‘em out. The problem comes a year from now, when the rule is amended to include these kinds of designs. Will they have sold enough units to justify the R&D? How many will they still have on hand that they’re going to have to melt down and start over with?

by Double Eagle on Jan 13, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

CAD changes it all

They don’t have to actually produce any of these clubs to patent the idea thanks to CAD. They know exactly what affects the groove changes will have.

USGA doesn’t have to specifically address these grooves – they can ammend the rules as they need to keep up with the ideas.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jan 13, 2009 2:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

but...

…they may ask #4 to wear a bra before making a public appearance. :-D

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jan 13, 2009 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, but...

Presumably they’d want to put these into production before the USGA can act. The patent is just step one.

by Double Eagle on Jan 13, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Get the patent, take the clubs to market because they conform today, and then the USGA cannot retrofit the rules.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jan 13, 2009 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not exactly

they haven’t been cofirmmed as conforming by the USGA. They are something new and have to go through the board for their determination.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jan 13, 2009 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right

I mean, in a hypothetical sense. Assuming they conform to current rules at the time they submit them for consideration.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jan 13, 2009 8:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

nice save :-)

the likelihood of things like this sneaking past the USGA and R&A boards is pretty slim these days thanks to all the high tech equipment they have for testing – even on computers.