USGA Finally Speaks on Groove Controversy, Phil's Crusade
by Ryan Ballengee on Feb 5, 2010 11:40 AM EST
in Pro Golf
Email
PrintThough I've been doing some communication with the USGA in light of this grooves controversy, I had not broached the subject at much depth with the USGA's Senior Technical Director - and the man in Phil's crosshairs - Dick Rugge.
Gary Smits did, though, and got a few comments from Rugge about the situation and allegations made by Mickelson.
Rugge said the process is hardly "one man."
"I have a staff of 16 people, including six engineers with Ph.D.s," Rugge said. "We get about 2,500 clubs submitted to us every year, and we approve about 80 percent of them as conforming. And the 20 percent have an appeal process. They can go to the USGA executive committee, so there's 15 more people involved. We can't please everyone, but I think we do the best we can."
Rugge wouldn't criticize players who use the Ping Eye2 irons in competition and didn't have an opinion about whether the use of the clubs violates the spirit of the USGA ban on U-groove clubs.
"They're conforming clubs," he said of the Ping Eye2s. "I have no problem with a player who uses them."
While I wish that Rugge and the USGA would be a little more visible in the media to engage in a dialogue about the issues Phil has raised, at least this is a start.
51 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
oh, so it was someone on his staff that declared the Callaway clubs non conforming!
what a crock. those guys gather data. Rugge makes the decisions.
freeze, I gotta ask where you have the authority to know how the USGA actually makes decisions ‘cause you’re speaking like you know for certain.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroomryan, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Feb 5, 2010 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
Ryan
my point is that the “staff of 16” comment was a copout. Rugge is the “emperor” of the USGA. he makes those decisions. not his engineers. i would have some respect for him if he had the guts to own the decision.
by freeze gopher on Feb 5, 2010 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
his point was that he has 16 people to go through 2,500 clubs every year – that’s a lot of work. he then has to go through their work and recommendations to make his final decision.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
CG
exactly. Rugge makes the decision and that is what he should have said. the “staff of 16” is irrelevant.
by freeze gopher on Feb 5, 2010 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
if usga works like every other reasonably well-run organization on the planet
The staff of 16 does the work (that’s a lot of clubs to thoroughly evaluate) and writes recommendations. Most manufacturers will submit equipment that easily fit within the guidelines. A few will be borderline and require the opinions of several engineers to make a determination. Some clubs will obviously be outside the regulations and will be rejected. The staff is not irrelevant, but in every organization someone has the ultimate responsibility. At the USGA where equipment is concerned, that would be Mr. Rugge.
So, freeze, what’s your gripe? Did you design and build a club that USGA rejected? Come on, you can be honest with us.
Truth has a well-known liberal bias.
diane
read this slowly. the club that Callaway submitted conformed to the new guidelines. the data that “the staff of 16” submitted proved that. the data also showed that the club was still able to attain a high spin rate. Rugge was embarassed by this so he declared the club non-conforming. that is why Mickelson put the Eye-2 wedge in his bag. to show how ridiculous Rugge was since he was NOT allowed to use a club that conformed to the new guidelines regarding grooves but he WAS allowed to use a club that did NOTconform to the new guidelines.
got it now?
what is for dinner?
by freeze gopher on Feb 8, 2010 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
you can’t possibly believe that is all there is to it. I still haven’t seen a full description of the club and why it was declared non-conforming. And I definitely don’t buy that Callaway submitted a wedge that was completely conforming and Rugge just stamped it non-conforming on a whim.
the fact that Phil was doing the public whining tells me that there is more to the story than what is coming out. If it was completely conforming and was denied, you can bet the farm that Callaway would have the lawyers on the USGA doorstep by the end of the day.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
that is exactly what it is. the USGA keeps the “spirit of the rule” crap in there because they want to have the power to make arbitrary decisions. that is what Mickelson and the tour have major problems with.
wht do you think that is not it? is it too obvious for you?
by freeze gopher on Feb 8, 2010 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
I read it as CG does – Rugge is giving the reader credit to figure out that since he’s the senior technical director that he is the ultimate interpreter of the rules.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroomryan, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Feb 5, 2010 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
Ryan, this is from the article;
""I have been very upset over the way the entire groove rule has come about and its total lack of transparency," Mickelson said. “I’m very upset … 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.”
Rugge said the process is hardly “one man.”
“I have a staff of 16 people, including six engineers with Ph.D.s,” Rugge said. “We get about 2,500 clubs submitted to us every year, and we approve about 80 percent of them as conforming. And the 20 percent have an appeal process. They can go to the USGA executive committee, so there’s 15 more people involved. We can’t please everyone, but I think we do the best we can.”
THAT is a copout by Rugge. the staff gathers info. RUGGE makes the decision. it may not be a one man “process” but it is a one man decision.
by freeze gopher on Feb 5, 2010 1:20 PM EST up reply actions
Aside from adding more ammunition to the “Phil’s an idiot” file (well done) – I still don’t see what you’re complaining about. He is describing the process – he didn’t say the decision was anybody else’s but his unless there is an appeal.
I think you’re trying to prove a negative – because he DIDN’T say that all decisions are his, then he must be passing off decisions to his staff, so this isn’t his fault.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Court
Rugge’s reply is to Phil’s statement about “one man” making a decision. bringing up the 16 member staff is a copout. they don’t make the decision. they gather data. the data that they gathered said that the club met the specs regarding the new grooves. the data also showed that the club also produced a high spin rate. so even though the club was within the specs that the USGA set he decided it was not conforming because Callaway’s engineers were better than his.
he should have just said that HE made the decision.
by freeze gopher on Feb 5, 2010 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
I see what you’re saying – but I think you’re interpreting it the wrong way. Remember – Mickelson is on a crusade on behalf of Callaway.
Rugge is still the BMOC and it is known that the decision has to come from his desk
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
i don’t care about Phil or Callaway other than in this instance they are right. they spent time and money developing a club that met the specs that the USGA set. Rugge denied the club anyway.
Mickelson should represent Callaway’s interest. they pay him a lot of money. i give him credit for that.
Rugge should have been clear and owned the decision. instead he answered like a weasel.
by freeze gopher on Feb 5, 2010 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
I see – you’re just taking Mickelson’s word on how well the club conformed to the rule – but the USGA is a bunch of lying weasels ? Phil spews Obama buzz words, so that makes him right ?
Again – just because a club shapes and positions grooves the right way doesn’t mean that the club conforms. Why is that so difficult ? Mickelson has already shown that what HE wants is his spin back so he can have a chance to hit the green after missing yet another fairway.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
he generates more spin than anyone on tour. most of the time he is trying to take spin off.
his issue, along with most of the tour is with the USGA.
what makes Mickelson right is the fact that the USGA admitted that the club conformed to specs.
by freeze gopher on Feb 5, 2010 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
you have never seen anyone try to take spin off of a ball that is not in the fairway?
by freeze gopher on Feb 5, 2010 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
no – see – that’s the whole point of rough – to make it harder to control the ball by taking spin off the ball.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
actually, the point is that there isn’t much “rough” on the PGA Tour. the “first cut” is a joke. those lies are better than middle of the fairway in the 50’s and 60’s. even if they do grow something close to rough the galleries tramp that down. and i have definately seen pros “dead hands” a ball from the rough.
by freeze gopher on Feb 5, 2010 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
But, again, the specs alone don’t determine the ok of clubs.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroomryan, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Feb 5, 2010 2:31 PM EST up reply actions
If they don’t then the USGA is putting manufacturers in a completely unfair situation. Companies are spending millions on R&D working to established specs. If you’re going to turn around and tell them later that the specs are only part of the equation, then it’s not really fair to them. If you’re trying to stifle advances in equipment, that’s certainly the way to do it.
When the USGA wanted to limit COR, it put out a number: 0.85. Period. It didn’t put out a nebulous list of materials and shapes and measurements hoping that it would force engineers into a box that would effectively limit COR to 0.85. No. They came up with a number. If the USGA wants to limit spin, then it needs to come up with a number.
To act in the way it has been acting is not putting manufacturers in a good spot. It would be one thing if the USGA was protecting it’s own interests. But it’s supposed to be the benevolent ruling body acting for the good of the game. Ambiguity in equipment regulations helps NO ONE.
he didn’t say that – he just described his staff and process. his position is a “buck stops here…unless there is an appeal process” position.
I wonder if it was training or if Smits was as disappointed as he sounds when he said that Rugge WOULDN’T criticize players using the PE2 wedges. He didn’t choose “didn’t criticize” or “had no criticism for” – he chose "wouldn’t, which leads me to believe that he was given the chance (ie a leading question) and gave the answer he gave. Well done Mr Rugge for not taking the bait.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Dick is not a guy who flies off the cuff at players. He is a very reasonable guy.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroomryan, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Feb 5, 2010 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
CG,
it’s that style of JOURNALISM that has become pervasive in our .print media today…I personally think that is why so much of it is in demise…If they can’t elicit the answer they want, they twist the wording to suit the article…It’s called SPIN folks…I don’t doubt that Mr. Rugge is a stand up guy….that’s not the issue…it’s grooves….The powers that be, set the SPECS THE CLUBS MUST CONFORM TO…The club mfgs. submit the clubs to meet those specs…They either pass or not….If they pass, they were INTENDED to be manufactured to pass….STUB
Em, I've heard a slew of pessimistic Saints
fans are presently constructing a huge brown paper bag to cover the entire city of New Orleans after the trouncing by dem Colts.
Just hoping your house will be near one of the eye holes so you can look out the window, so to speak.
by TXQ on Feb 5, 2010 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
Don't know if it'll happen, but...
I understand that the Madden NFL computer game has accurately predicted the winner of the Super Bowl 5 of the last 6 years (it missed the Giants over the Pats). This year, it predicts Saints over Colts, 35-31.
Here are the links — the 2nd gives the 4th quarter play-by-play:
http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/saints-win-super-bowl-says-madden-nfl/1387788
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/020310-madden-nfl-10-predicts-35-31.html
Mike Southern
www.ruthlessgolf.com
by Ruthless Mike on Feb 5, 2010 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I saw that.....and another computer program
ran it 10,000 times and the Saints won 63% of the time……crap…..now I’m getting my hopes up…..Who Dat.
The Saints are in the SUPER BOWL....WHO DAT!
Okay, Em but you'll be a
Monday morning aching back.
by TXQ on Feb 5, 2010 5:39 PM EST up reply actions
ain’t that the truth – “journalism” schools have been teaching students that they are there to “make a difference” – when the job of a reporter is to REPORT THE TRUTH – not color a story with their own opinions.
can’t agree with you 100% on the grooves, Stub. These companies start with the groove specs, then try to do an end run to juice up the spin rate. you should go to The Golf Patent Lawyer blog site (http://golf-patents.com/) and flip through some of the ideas these tech guys have submitted for patents and then to the USGA for testing. Some of them are brilliant pieces of work – but they go against the intent of the rule – which is to slow the spin rate coming out of the rough in order to make these guys hit more fairways.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Great point, Court. Something I hadn’t brought up yet. It really is worth reading a lot of Dave’s posts to get a sense of what engineers at the OEMs are trying to do to skirt around rules & regulations, or simply new ideas for clubs.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroomryan, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Feb 5, 2010 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
I'm amazed at how much all you guys know about this stuff.
And it’s sure more fun to read sans the childish name-callers. Of course, the day is young.
Nah. He seems like more of a gin
rummy kinda guy.
by TXQ on Feb 5, 2010 1:28 PM EST up reply actions
Well CG,
ya let ol TX do like the small minded writers….drag you into saying what they want…I am so tired of this groove thing…Why is everyone so fixated on the clubs, when the ball issue that needs to be addressed with it is ignored….How long ago was it that Jack N. said the ball had to be regulated?…no one has given a big red rats behind to ALL the issues of the groove problem…Was Callaway going to make Phil a different ball (material,core etc) to go with the club they submitted?….If that was the case, than ya, their INTENT is an end around on the grooves…The CLUB SUBMITTED, PASSED THE GROOVES SPECS…PERIOD…Ask any manufacturing company, and their intent is to make a saleable product….Else, why the hell spend R&D and all other expenses…STUB
lol – easy stub – TX was being funny and I got the joke
are you telling me that you have the USGA test results on this wedge ? You know that the wedge that they tested didn’t have EXTRAS built in to jack up the spin rate ?
yes Callaway will make a ball to fit Phil’s specs – and guess what – before he hits shot one in a tournament, it will go to the USGA for approval.
Yes – the companies want to make a sellable product – but they have to be compliant with the rules.
LIke I’ve said before – the USGA is on defense when it comes to tech things like this. The geniuses in R&D can come up with designs faster than they can be tested.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Thinker was just being himself,
an e-stalker with the brains of celery.
He resents anyone else with wit. He think this site is a one-funny-horse town.
I usually just ignore him.
by TXQ on Feb 5, 2010 6:26 PM EST up reply actions
Ahh, the first cheap, said from a safe distance, of course,
rears its ugly head. If we could only set up a children’s table here apart from the adults’.
Phil's Crusade????
Is that the spin (no pun intended) the Mickelson camp is putting on Phil’s choice to use the Eye2 wedge? That he was on a “crusade” to improve the game? That’s very creative!
From the article….
“They’re conforming clubs,” he said of the Ping Eye2s
…as my hero Joe wilson would say…“You lie!!!!” They are NOT conforming clubs; they weren’t conforming in 1990 and they’re certainly NOT conforming now in 2010. They are legal, ie. approved for use on the PGA Tour because of a 1993 court decision.
My gosh, how stupid can you be to make such a statement?(again, that is a rhetorical question, not a malicious one)
CG,
I too got the joke form TX…and to his credit…(gawd I hate using that word)..he is funny and creative most of the time…must spend a lot of time in thought….What I said or at least meant was, that the clubs Callaway submitted, must have passed the shape, size, grooves, bounce, taste and smell specs…They were passed for the specs laid down….That should be the end of it….How, Where and form whence does the USGA get to determine INTENT….If something was wrong in the shape, size, etc. of the club submitted, reject it….If it passed the specs….Pass it….The spin rate from rough has to be a subjective subject, due to different grasses, lengths, juice from rain, etc…If the USGA had said these are the grooves you must use, and the spin rate can only be within these parameters, than they are talking about the ball and not the club…I can’t see how the USGA can legislate that anyway, cause that carries the pros skill into the mix…STUB
I don't spend a lot of time re my comments,
just quick-witted.
by TXQ on Feb 5, 2010 6:27 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Have a golf story tip? Contact editor Charles Boyer and he will follow the story! Thanks!
Related FanPosts on Waggle Room
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
